Preamble

The House met at Half after Twelve of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Greenock Port and Harbours Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

IMPERIAL REVENUE (COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE) (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).

Return ordered "relating to Imperial Revenue (Collection and Expenditure) (Great Britain and Ireland) for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1920 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 162, of Session 1919)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

ROADS BILL,

"to make provision for the collection and application of the Excise Duties on mechanically propelled vehicles and on carriages; to amend the Finance Act, 1920, as respects such duties; and to amend the Motor Car Acts, 1896 and 1903, and the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909; and to make other provision with respect to roads and vehicles used on roads; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Sir ERIC GEDDES; supported by Sir Gordon Hewart, Mr. Baldwin, and Mr. Neal; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 245.]

Orders of the Day — MEMBERS' EXPENSES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the salary allotted to Members of this House, the travelling and other expenses incurred by them in connection with their Parliamentary duties, and to report."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Commander BELLAIRS: Anyone who knows the Members of His Majesty's Government will acquit them of introducing this Resolution in a cynical spirit, but I venture to say that appearances are somewhat against them. Therefore, I appeal to the Government to leave the matter to the unfettered judgment of the House, and not to put on the Whips if we go to a Division. I say that appearances are against them, because in this matter we are going to appoint nine Members of Parliament—some of whom have loudly demanded increased emoluments by questions in this House—to inquire into their own salaries. One of the Members of Parliament on the Committee threatened a strike of Members of Parliament unless the Government brought forward proposals for increasing the salaries of Members of Parliament. After all, we owe a duty to the taxpayers, and we are supposed to protect the taxpayers. We are hardly the best body to inquire into the question of increasing our own salaries. A few Members of Parliament emulated the importunate widow, and worried the Government on this matter The Members who did so, and who are on this Committee, are sufficient to form a quorum—three will form a quorum. The Committee is formed at the tail-end of the Session, when Members are tired out, and those who are interested are more likely to attend. When Members inquire into their own salaries, the practice is capable of widespread imitation. Why should not the colliers in the coal trade inquire into their own salaries? [HON. MEMBERS: "They do."] Is it not a very dangerous policy? The miners have not the power of regulating their own salaries except by strikes.
For a Government which is not a Socialistic Government to bring forward such a proposal seems to me very dangerous. I ask what is the evidence on which we are going to base the necessity of the inquiry? There is no evidence of a
widespread demand of which I know anything. The only evidence of impoverished Labour Members of Parliament is the alacrity with which certain Labour members write for what is called by them the "capitalist Press." [HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to get agreement on that point. There is, for instance, the prophetic member for Derby (Mr.Thomas), who has written "When Labour Rules." I should say that he writes ten times for the "capitalist" press for once that he writes for the "Daily Herald," the impeccable, impayable and irreproachable "Daily Herald." It is true. I believe, that there are one or two hard cases, but I would remind the Government and the Committee, if it be set up, that hard cases make bad law.
I feel very much handicapped on this occasion because the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who is a most efficient guardian of the public purse, is not present. Had I known he was not to be present, I would have asked him for a copy of his speech to help me on my way. Looking down on the Order Paper, I see that the right hon. Member is to be put on a Committee which is to be a real economy Committee. How is he to put any heart into his work when he knows that sitting next door there are Committees, one for increasing the salaries of Ministers, and another for increasing the salaries of Members? I should say that these Committees, following each other, suggest that "thereby hangs a tale." I will follow the example of those gentlemen who give us pictorial illustrations from natural history and teach wisdom by their wit. I will go to the world of natural history. The giraffes, the long-tongued ones, are those that are able to browse on the higher pastures. The short-tongued ones are not able to do so. The long-tongued giraffes are the Ministers; but the Parliamentary institutions of the giraffes have not advanced to the extent that ours have advanced. We are able to control the emoluments of Ministers, and I take it that there is something in the nature of a bargain in setting up this Committee, that we have granted the Committee to inquire into Ministerial salaries first, and that the two Committees are dependent upon each other.
I am opposed to both Committees, and I ask, are they wise? Do appearances count for nothing? At the moment the whole country is demanding economy,
and we set up two Committees which can result only in increased expenditure. The increased emoluments which will probably result from this Committee will set a scale for all those Parliaments that we are to set up by devolution. We are going to set up Parliaments for Wales, Scotland and England. I hope I have given them in the order of their importance. Therefore, the result will be that we are setting up a standard of very much increased expenditure for the payment of Members and Ministers of those Parliaments. In 1911, when Members of Parliament were first paid, it was freely prophesied that we were entering on the slippery slopes of "the spoils for the victors." I remember that the argument was used that the United States Senate began with salaries of £180 a year. The salary in the United States Senate now is in the neighbourhood of £3,000 a year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is evident what hon. Members are expecting. We have been paid since 1911. I ask the House to consider what have we gained. Is the work better done, is the morality of Parliament higher, is its prestige higher? I remember when the present Prime Minister as Secretary of State for War introduced a Court of Inquiry Bill on a very delicate subject connected with inquiries where the other sex were concerned, I ventured to say that improper petticoat influence was as nothing compared to improper Parliamentary influence. I took up the other day a book which has just come out with the title "Experiences of a Dug-Out," by General Sir Chas. Crolwell, and in it he says:
Resisting petticoat influence, I can assure you, is child's play compared to resisting Parliamentary influence. For good, straightforward, unblushing; shan't-take-no-for-an-answer jobbery give me the Member of Parliament. They are sublime in their hardihood.
That can only be intensified by going on with these increases of salary. If no gain is to result, why should we be higher paid, and why set up this Committee? It is not the experience of the United States that any gain has resulted from salaries or increases of salaries. The Congress of to-day cannot compare in efficiency and in rectitude and morality with the Congress which included Washington, Franklin. and Hamilton.

Mr. ROSE: And Tammany.

Commander BELLAIRS: In every item of expenditure the Government should not ask "is it useful," but "is it vital?" Is it vital to increase the salaries of Member of Parliament? I say it is not vital. I remember that Gladstone once wrote that of all changes this was the least to be desired. It is perfectly true that Gladstone changed his mind not on principle, but for expediency. This Committee is set up on a mere pretext. I believe it to be simply a sordid ambition, this desire for an increase in salaries. I recall what Hume the historian said:
When ambition can be so happy as to cover its enterprises even to the person himself under the appearance of principle, it is the most incurable and inflexible of all human passions.
I regret the pitiful plight into which Parliament is placed in setting up these committees. In the case of the salaries of Ministers we acknowledge that there are one or two, such as that of the Secretary for Scotland, which ought to be increased. But there the matter is obvious, and it did not want a Committee, and we do not want this Committee to consider the emoluments of Members of Parliament. I appeal to the Government to leave this question to the free and unfettered judgment of the House, and not to put on the Government whips.

Mr. THOMAS SHAW: We have listened to a very pleasant and rather eloquent speech about long-tongued giraffes browsing on higher pastures, but that has got nothing at all to do with the subject under consideration, and we have heard nothing from the hon. and gallant Gentleman of the real reason why a Committee of this kind should be set up. There is after all a change in the condition which exists now as compared with the condition which existed when this salary was fixed, and, if it be a salary, is anybody going to contend that a man who lives in the North of England or in Scotland—

Major O'NEILL: Or in Ireland.

Mr. SHAW: —in Ireland the condition is still worse—that he is adequately paid by this salary? There are two ways of looking at salary. There is the point of view of the person who pays, and that of the person who is paid. The person who says that he is satisfied with a salary of this kind for the work involved seems to me to be a person who has not got
much sense of personal dignity, not to mention ambition. It does not necessarily follow that either this Committee, or the other Committee to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, would recommend an increase. But it may be possible that Members who are now suffering considerable hardship may have some alleviation. May I call the attention of the hon. and gallant Member to the fact that there are Members who are conscientious, who really try to do good for the country, who have some regard for the country's honour, and really do believe in economy, and who suffer very considerably by the fact that they are Members of this House. There are cases of Members who over and over again have had to stand in a crowded third-class compartment for four or five or six hours at a stretch, because they cannot afford to travel first-class under comfortable circumstances. If when one talks about maintaining the dignity and honour and prestige of Parliament that is allowed to go on, there is no dignity or honour in it. The men who are comfortably circumstanced, and whose residences are in London, and who do not need to travel and pay expensive fares, can speak in a way different from the man who has to do those things, and to whom every penny is vital and who cannot afford first-class fare in travelling. Such a man, I think, is entitled to turn round to the other gentleman and say, "You talk about honour and dignity, but you talk from a very pleasant position; your lines after all are cast in very pleasant places, and have you carefully considered not only honour and dignity, as you understand it, but as you ought to understand it from the standpoint of others as well as your own?" Then perhaps we should hear no more of such speeches as that we have heard.
Let the Committee make its investigations. I believe there is not a single Parliament in the whole of the world, our own excepted, where Members of Parliament, travelling on national business, are required to pay their own railway fares. Is it honour and dignity on the part of Parliament to say that no man who is not a rich man shall come to the House of Commons, for that is what it amounts to, because unless a man is sub-ventioned or rich he cannot come to Par-
liament? Take my own case. It costs me, living in a very tiny room in Pimlico, £250 per year. Then there are expenses of travel and the rest, and there is left, when the Income Tax authorities are finished with us, a very small amount. Unless I am subventioned by somebody or have personal riches, I cannot live as a Member of Parliament. The honour and dignity of the country demand that every man willing to serve his nation, and possessing the capacity shall be able to serve, and the most selfish argument one could use it that, because a man is comfortably circumstanced, or his friends are comfortably circumstanced, he should have a monopoly of this Parliament, and then proclaim himself an idealist in the cause of high morality and honour and prestige. I shall support the Government in setting up this Committee, because I believe it is a fair thing to do, because I believe that the country ought to see that its representatives should travel in comfort to and from London, and because I believe if this be called a salary that it should, at any rate, bear some resemblance to payment for work done.

Mr. HOGGE: I do not think the Members of this House ought to be afraid of the cheap criticisms made against this proposal, and I hope the Government will not agree to take off the Government Whips. The Government Whips were put on for the appointment of the Committee to deal with Ministers' remuneration—or, rather, they would have been put on had it been necessary. I am myself a member of that Committee. I know what the Members are saying and thinking about it. That Committee is not going to work in order to increase Ministers' salaries. It is only going to explore all the anomalies in connection with the payment of Ministers and the Members of this House. It does not follow that if the Committee now suggested is set up, Members' salaries will he increased. If the idea were to place the remuneration of Members of Parliament on the basis of that proper to professional men, we should be faced with such a demand that probably the House would decline to consider it. But there are many anomalies which should be put right. My hon. Friend who has just spoken (Mr. Shaw) has referred to one, and that is with regard to travelling. If hon. Members will look at the membership of the House, they will
find that nearly one-third of the Members reside within bus or tube fare distances of the House of Commons. Other Members who come from Ireland, and Scotland, and the remoter parts of the Kingdom carry a very heavy burden for railway travelling. There is another point which indicates that the Committee need not necessarily consider the question of increase as an increase, and that is in regard to the matter of correspondence. Ministers of the Crown, acting as Ministers, are entitled and do use the post to deal with their constituents and to deal with their fellow-members. If I write to any Minister he can reply to me under the frank of the Government, and if any of his constituents write to him he can reply to them in the same way. But for the ordinary Member of Parliament who performs his duties as a Member the question of correspondence from one year's end to the other involves a heavy charge upon him, and one which, I repeat, is not laid upon Ministers.
I was not in the House of Commons when the question of remuneration was considered, but I have looked up the Debate. The money was never given as salary. There never was any question that the £400 which hon. Members draw, or which people think they draw—and that is a very different thing, as we who draw it know perfectly well what we get on our pink slips—was originally granted by the present Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, as expenses. Any business man knows that he is entitled to deduct from his assessable income all necessary expenses connected with his profession, but we in this House are not allowed to do that, and the Treasury or the Paymaster-General makes deductions which I am very glad to say one hon. Member of this House intends to contest in the Courts of law. To sum up, this is not a Committee which will deliberately set out to increase M.P.'s salaries, and the Government would be very foolish, and I hope the Leader of the House will see to it, if when they have set up this Committee they do not take advantage of it to explore the whole facts. The House itself will finally have to decide whether or not it will accept the Committee's recommendations. I advise hon. Members not to be afraid of the cheap kind of criticism indulged in by the
hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs).

1.0 P.M.

Mr. C. WHITE: In supporting this Motion I want, if I may, to approach it from a personal standpoint. I did not come to Parliament to make money; I have always been a poor man. I started work at ten years of age at 1s. per week. I never lived in anything but a cottage. I have at the present moment no social ambitions or aspirations. I never asked for an increase of salary, as has been suggested by the hon. and gallant Member who spoke in opposition to this proposal. I do not write in the Press for pay, although I have written many thousands of columns for nothing. It may be I am not qualified. I hold no brief, for either expenses or anything, else in this House, to act here on behalf of any company or person either in Committee or in this House. I have no pension from the Government. I have never held a dual office as Member of Parliament and under the Government, in the Army, or Navy, or Civil Service. I wrote up the first rationing scheme that became operative in this country, and when I was asked to become a candidate for Parliament I was compelled to give up the position I held before I could be nominated at all. That position was at the Ministry of Food. Unlike many Members of Parliament, I made nothing out of the War. I worked for two or three years at 36s. a week, with no other income whatever for the first two years of the War, and doing what I think was considered rather important work in Derbyshire. The recruiting authorities would probably vouch for that. May I add I never intervene in any Debate unless I know what I am talking about. I have £400 a year only. I am not subsidised. I am not in any business. I live in my constituency, and after all it is some advantage for a Member to live in the constituency that he represents. He may be a valuable connecting link between that constituency and Parliament, and possibly of some advantage to the Government, which may desire to have first knowledge of what is happening in a constituency when there are so many things delegated to the local authorities to administer. The Member may be able to lend a helping hand.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Is not the hon. Member who is now speaking one of those
whom it is proposed to nominate as a Member of the Committee? [An HON. MEMBER: "He had just been attacked before you came in."] If this Resolution pass, we shall be putting on the Committee an hon. Member who has already expressed his opinion upon the question to be investigated.

Mr. SPEAKER: The object of appointing a Committee is to appoint impartial persons to investigate the question, and the hon. Member rather gives himself away in what he is saying.

Mr. C. WHITE: I have not mentioned up till now what part I am going to take on this Committee, neither am I going to do so. I was giving my own experience. Perhaps I am the only man in the House who has to live on his salary. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]

Mr. SPEAKER: That would be a matter for the Committee.

Mr. WHITE: I obey your ruling, Sir.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I am going to make a suggestion which, I hope, will shorten this discussion, because I do not see there is much object in a long Debate at this stage. The time for debating the question, if this Committee be set up, is when the House gets its Report. This is much more a question for the House of Commons than for the Government, and I am perfectly certain that, whatever the decision of the House may be, the great majority of the House will feel, as the Government feel, that there is something here which ought to be inquired into. That is all that is being done. A short discussion took place on this subject, I think, at the beginning of this Parliament. I should be very sorry to have this looked upon as if it were a question only between the Labour party and the Government. It was impressed upon me that there was a feeling in all quarters of the House that, at all events, this subject needed to be inquired into. I think that is evident. I am not now going to debate the question as to whether or not Members of Parliament should be paid at all. It would not be in order, and I should be very unwilling to do it. But, assuming that Parliament was right in fixing a salary with a certain amount, which, I think, was £100, for expenses, it is perfectly obvious to the
House that the question whether the allowance under the head of expenses, which might have been considered adequate when money was worth what it was then, is on for proper examination now, when we know how much more money is necessary to get the same services. I do not, in the least, wish to pre-judge the question, but I feel strongly that the House ought to agree to the inquiry. It is a question, however, not for the Government, but for the House. I am sure the House will approve of the inquiry, but I am quite prepared to leave it to the House to decide, without the Whips being put on.

Mr. MILLS: This will not be the first occasion on which I disregard the wishes of my colleagues. I am not amenable to the Labour party or to any trade union, and it is for that reason I am speaking to-day. I know that the remarks of the first speaker will go out to the Press, and the entire object of those remarks was to make political capital against the Labour party. I want to say as a Member of this House, that had I cared, although I would not have been in this House since April, I could have had a subsidy, as there are hon. Members in this House with a subsidy to watch the interests of this or that industrial corporation. For that reason, I submit that, at least, this question should be discussed on its merits, and without attempting to make capital out of it. Everyone knows that any man who serves in this House, including the Front Bench, if he cared to use his undoubted ability in a commercial direction, could make six times the sum he is making here. Therefore, the charge that the hon. Member (Commander Bellairs) is trying to make against one party is, to say the least, cheap and nasty.

Mr. LINDSAY: I want to raise a point which seems to me of some importance with regard to procedure. I always understood that Labour Members were appointed to Committees according to the strict rule. I would, therefore, draw attention to the fact that there are three Labours Members suggested. [HON. MEMBERS: "Only two.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered, that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the salary allotted to Members of this House, the travelling and other expenses incurred by them in
connection with their Parliamentary duties, and to report.

Sir Godfrey Collins, Major Farquharson, Major Glyn, Rear-Admiral Sir R. Hall, Mr. Hartshorn, Commander O. Locker-Lampson, Mr. Stanton, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Charles White nominated members of the Committee.

Ordered, that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:

Ordered, that Three be the quorum. [Colonel Gibbs.]

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT (RELIEF WORKS) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Section 9 (2) of 7 Edw. VII., c. 47, not to apply in certain cases.)

The provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section mine of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, shall not apply with respect to the construction of any new road where the Minister of Labour certifies that, having regard to the exceptional amount of unemployment in any area, it is desirable that the construction of the new road should he proceeded with forthwith with a view to the speedy provision of employment for unemployed persons from that area."—[Mr. Munro.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is rendered necessary in order that the procedure under the Bill may not be delayed. Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, provides for certain consultation with the road authority before a scheme is entered into, which must almost inevitably lead to delay, and, in order that these schemes may be expeditious, it has been thought proper to move the deletion of that particular Sub-section, which applies, no doubt, very well in normal conditions, but not in the abnormal conditions which have rendered this Bill necessary.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 1.—(Provision for facilitating the compulsory acquisition of, and entry on, land required for works of public utility.)

Provided that—
(a) the powers conferred by this Section shall not be exercised except where it is certified by the Minister of Labour that, having regard to the exceptional amount of unemployment existing in any area, it is desirable that the provisions of this Section should be put into operation with a view to the speedy provision of employment for unemployed persons from that area; and

Mr. HAYDAY: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the word "exceptional."
In Committee upstairs, a similar Amendment was moved because we felt that there are plenty of powers given to the Labour Minister and local authorities which would make this word quite unnecessary in the Clause. We felt that, having regard to the amount of unemployment existing, the term would be quite sufficiently wide without the word "exceptional." "Exceptional" is a very elastic word, and depends largely upon the temper or the outlook of the Minister of Labour for the time being. It was suggested in Committee that, where the rate of unemployment seemed above the normal, that would be quite sufficient indication to the Labour Minister and the local authority in any given area that there was in existence a state of unemployment above the normal, and we felt that the Labour Minister ought not to have the power to say, "In my opinion this is not an exceptional state of unemployment." As there appears to be an indication from the Minister of Labour that it is possible he may be able to agree to strike out the word "exceptional," I need not detain the House any longer.

Mr. TYSON WILSON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. MUNRO: As my hon. Friend has said, this question was discussed upstairs yesterday, and I promised to consider the matter before the Report stage. I have now had the opportunity of conferring with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, and after that conference I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move in paragraph (a), after the word "area" ["unemployed persons from that area"], to insert the words
and the Minister of Labour shall take into consideration any representations which may be made to him by any local authority to the effect that he should issue a certificate under this Section.
I put down this Amendment in order to meet the arguments used upstairs yesterday. The effect of it is that the Minister of Labour should be in touch with the various areas in which unemployment exists. This Amendment, I think, gives effect to the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman sitting opposite to me upstairs yesterday.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Interpretation and saving.)

(1) In this Act the expression "work of Public utility "means the construction or improvement of roads or other means of transit, the widening or other improvement of waterways, the construction or improvement of harbours, the construction of sewers or waterworks, afforestation, the reclamation or drainage of land, and any other work, being a work which a local authority has power to execute, which is approved for the purposes of this Act by the appropriate Government department as a work of public utility.

Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "roads" ["construction or improvement of roads or other means of transit"], to insert the words "(including bridges, viaducts, and subways)."
This Amendment is also put on the Paper in order to meet a point raised in discussion yesterday. It was suggested that the word "road" did not cover with sufficient clearness the case of bridges, viaducts and subways. The word "road" has that signification, as I understand, in more than one Act of Parliament; but in order that there may be no dubiety in the matter I move the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Application to Scotland and Ireland.)

(1) In the application of this Act to Scotland references to the Scottish Board of Health shall be substituted for references to the Minister of Health.

Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words:
(b) for the reference to The Housing, Town Planning, &c., Act, 1919, there shall be substituted a reference to The Housing, Town Planning, &c. (Scotland), Act, 1919;
(c) for the reference to Section sixty-nine of The Local Government Act, 1888. there shall be substituted a reference to Section sixty-seven of The Local Government (Scotland), Act, 1889;
(d) for the reference to the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1908, there shall be substituted a reference to the Public Health (Scotland) Acts, 1897 and 1907;
(e) for reference to Section eighteen and Sections eighty-four to ninety of The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, there shall be substituted references to Section seventeen and Sections eighty-three to eighty-eight, respectively, of The Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845;
(f) in Section three of this Act the expression "local authority" means a county council or a town council.
These are really drafting Amendments to the Scottish Clause. They follow the terminology of that country, and are purely interpretative.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, "That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of a new Clause ('Rates of Wages and conditions of Labour on works of public utility')."
I make this Motion for the purpose of enabling the hon. Member for Nottingham West (Mr. Hayday) to move a new Clause of which he has given me notice, a Clause which, I understand, inasmuch as notice has not been given of it, cannot be taken upon the Report stage.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

[Sir J. BUTCHER in the Chair.]

NEW CLAUSE.—(Rates of Wages and Conditions of Labour on Works of Public Utility.)

Any person employed on a work of public utility under this Act shall be entitled to rates of wages and hours of labour not less favourable than those commonly recognised by employers and trade unions in the trade in the district in which the work is carried out, bud in the absence of such recognised wages and hours such person shall be entitled to those recognised or prevailing in the nearest district in which the general industrial circumstances are similar."— [Mr. Hayday.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. HAYDAY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Amendment was moved in Committee upstairs yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill felt that it was rather a big Amendment to be discussed at so short notice, and an undertaking was given that, if it was felt, after consultation with the Minister of Labour, that words could not be found to deal with certain exceptional cases that really will evolve from work of this character, he would undertake to ask for the re-committal of the Bill in order that we might discuss the proposed new Clause. Our experience of the last two periods of exceptional unemployment must be taken into consideration in relationship to perhaps the most important period we are likely to encounter now, and in the near future. During the years 1895–6—I am sure the Minister of Labour will well remember the keenness of the conditions then prevailing—we had what were termed relief works, mainly dependent upon the charitably disposed, subsidised by a Government grant to assist; the wages then paid and the conditions under which a man's wages were earned rather tended to deteriorate the physique and standard of those employed, so that when that period was over they were less fitted to take up their regular work. We came along to the period of 1904, which is perhaps the most distressing period of unemployment ever yet encountered, particularly in London, where a condition of things prevailed generally under which the recognised standard rates and hours in the particular class of employment provided under the guise of public utility works were paid. I remember the repairs being carried out to the main sewer embankment in the East End of London, and there the standard rates were paid as existing at that time. I realise that these works are not altogether in the sense relief works as we understood works of a similar character in years gone by. This is work that is going to be profitable and useful to the country as a whole. It is really being put into operation now, because it is essential to the development of road transport, and because of the state of unemployment. It is really useful public work being put into operation at a time when there is perhaps a shortage in the demand for useful labour and a supply greater than the demand.
I hope works of this character will be held in hand for periods such as this, and I hope that when good trade returns such work as can be held over until a period of depression arises will be held over. Work has already been put into operation in connection with the making of new roads by local authorities, and that is absorbing quite a number of ex-service men who would otherwise be unable to find employment. We realise that all these ex-service men have by reason of their service to the country under the conditions of the late War really become experts in that particular kind of occupation, namely, road-making. I suggest that these men as well as the unemployed ought not to be used for public utility service for the nation and the local authorities at a rate less than that which governs a similar kind of employment in the locality where the work is being carried out. Those are the points I desire to put before the Committee, and I do not want any degeneration in the relief work such as occurred in times gone by when it was looked upon as more like charity to employ these men under conditions which caused them to lose that manly respect which they ought to be assisted in maintaining. I want the rate of wages paid which have been discussed and fixed in the light of the increased cost of living, so that when these public utility services are no longer required to absorb the unemployed, these men may be employed under such wage conditions as will preserve for them their physique, and they should not be allowed to deteriorate because the wages may not be sufficient to supply their physical requirements, in order that they may take up their ordinary form of employment after the temporary work is over with equal physique and stamina as they possessed before.

Mr. T. WILSON: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. MUNRO: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. I have a great amount of sympathy with his point of view, and with some of the arguments he has used, but I am sure he will appreciate the difficulty of putting into an Act of Parliament a rigid Clause of the kind which is now on the Paper. I agree entirely with what he has said about the character of the work to be done. The one point about which we are keen is that the work should proceed with the greatest possible expedition, and if they are to
proceed with the execution of these works long and acrimonious discussions on the question of wages may very well hold up the work while the people remain unemployed. These works are to be largely carried out by local authorities and popularly elected bodies. Is it wise to control the discretion of these local authorities by a rigid Clause of this kind which would apply inflexibly to all the various local authorities who would be disabled by this Clause from giving any effect to local conditions.
In some instances it might not be desirable to pay such a high rate of wages as would attract men from other employment. A local authority would be able to consider all these circumstances and reach a conclusion unfettered by the terms of this Amendment. One can conceive it possible that a wave of unemployment might sweep over this country and the State might be in such a condition as would render this provision, if it were inflexibly laid down, inexpedient and difficult to work. Probably these wages will be paid. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent them being paid. The work that is being done now is being paid for at that rate. The only point I take is that inasmuch as that rate is now being paid, and local authorities are far better acquainted with the circumstances in which the work will have to be executed, they ought to have a free discretion. For these reasons I would ask hon. Members not to press this Amendment, which would really hamper the work which is being done, and prevent it being done with the expedition which we all desire.

Mr. WIGNALL: I think the best speech delivered in support of the Amendment has been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. The very points which he has brought out against the Amendment are the strongest that could be used in support of it. The fact that the trade union rate is now paid is sufficient justification for us putting it into the Act of Parliament, because we are not creating any new precedent. We are not asking for any departure from the conditions and customs that exist. That is one good point which the right hon. Gentleman has made for us. The second point is the fact that work of a remunerative character would be undertaken, and we
have not suggested digging holes in the earth and filling them up again. We only want work undertaken of a remunerative character. He pointed out that it would attract men from other employment.
We are dealing with unemployed persons who must justify their employment on the particular work that is being undertaken. That, in itself, is a safeguard, but the main argument in favour of this Amendment is that it would prevent the unemployed being exploited by people who are always out to do so. It would prevent people taking advantage of the poverty of the unemployed and compelling them to work at rates of wages less than those prevailing in the district. Some of us in the past have had experience of this kind of thing. I remember a bad patch in my own life. I shall never forget when in 1888 the industry with which I was concerned was shut down practically for twelve months, and many of us were put on arduous work, brutally arduous work, and paid the magnificent sum of 2s. 8d. per day, subject to certain deductions for doctor, hospital, etc. We did not object to the deductions, but we did object to the poverty pay which was given. I say that this has been done, that it is being done, and that it will be done again, and as long as remunerative work is undertaken, such as we have in mind—the widening of roads, the construction of tunnels and harbour works—the recognised rate of wages should apply. We believe the arguments used by the right hon. and learned Gentleman against the Clause is the strongest argument in favour of putting it in the Bill.

Mr. R. MCLAREN: I listened with some amazement to the remarks of the Secretary for Scotland, though there is a good deal to be said for his view. When unemployment comes upon a community, the first men to be dismissed are those who are not good workers. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Take, for instance, a colliery. When bad trade comes, the first seams to be stopped are those of a poor quality and the men are thrown idle. When depression takes place, the best men are not the, first to be sent about their business. At the same time there is a good deal to be said for the views which have been put forward by hon. Members on the opposite benches. It is not fair that a good workman should be asked to work for less
than the ordinary rate of wages paid in the district, but we must remember that there are many parts of these various schemes where it will take good men to do the work. Had I been in the House earlier, I should have asked what is likely to happen in my own district. There we have a huge quantity of peat moss which, under this new scheme, might be utilised not only for making moss litter for collieries, but also for making good briquettes. In order to get that work started you require the very best skilled men. I anticipate, therefore, that there would be no difficulty in giving them good wages. There may be other places where there is lighter work, and where men who are not very strong might be employed. I want to put this point. The ratepayers, looking around, might find unsuitable men, who were not skilled or able to do a good day's work, getting a big wage, if this scheme of giving the rate of wages prevalent in the district were applied. It would be a good thing if there were a departure from the cut-and-dried line, and an opportunity of employment at a smaller wage were given to these men. It would help things very considerably, and I put that view earnestly before my hon. Friends.
We shall have a good deal of unemployment in my own district; we have already, and I should be sorry to see men thrown out of employment and capable men paid at a rate lower than the ordinary rate of the district. At the same time, there are a large number of men going about who are not strong and cannot do a good day's work. It would

be a pity to prevent these men getting into some good occupation for the time being, so as to tide over the period of unemployment. Therefore, while there is a good deal to be said for the view of the Secretary for Scotland, I hope it will be made clear to the local authorities that capable, strong, good men should be paid the ordinary rate, but that they will be free to employ men who cannot do a good day's work at a lower rate of wage. The work in my own district which I mentioned requires special men. An engineer would not be capable of doing the work that an ordinary workman engaged in mining would do, because a good deal of it would be stone mining. In order to get to the various drifts one would require to drive an open or underground mine for some distance to the peat moss and take away the water. An ordinary workman or tradesman would be of little use, but as soon as he was able to do the work he ought to get the ordinary rate of wages. I hope the Secretary for Scotland will make it plain to the local authorities that they are expected to pay the ordinary rate of wages in the district to men who are able to do the work, but that they may employ those not so able at a less rate in order to tide over the period of unemployment, which, I regret to say, is likely to come sooner than most people seem to think.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 43: Noes, 94.

Division No. 375.]
AYES.
[1.45 p.m.


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Hirst, G. H.
Royce, William Stapleton.


Bromfield, William
Hogue, James Myles
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Irving, Dan
Simm. M. T.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Jesson, C.
Sitch, Charles H.


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Kenyon, Barnet
Spencer, George A.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lawson, John J.
Swan, J. E.


Donald, Thompson
Lunn, William
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Finney, Samuel
M'Cuffin, Samuel
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Glanville, Harold James
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
White, Charles F. (Derby. Western)


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Mills, John Edmund
Wignall, James


Grundy. T. W.
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Myers, Thomas



Hall. F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hallas, Eldred
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. Allen Parkinson.


Hartshorn, Vernon
Robertson, John



Hayday, Arthur
Rose, Frank H.



NOES.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Borwick, Major G. O.
Churchman. Sir Arthur


Astor, Viscountess
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Coats Sir Stuart


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Breese, Major Charles E.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy)
Kiley, James D.
Preston, W. R.


Doyle, N. Grattan
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Fell, Sir Arthur
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Lorden, John William
Seddon, J. A.


Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Gibbs. Colonel George Abraham
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Glyn, Major Ralph
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Macquisten. F. A.
Sugden, W. H.


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Magnus, Sir Philip
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Greig, Colonel James William
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Neal, Arthur
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Nicholson. Reginald (Doncaster)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Whitla, Sir William


Hoare. Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Hopkins, John W. W.
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Parker, James
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Perring, William George



Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Pratt, John William
Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.


Question put, and agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. MUNRO: Perhaps the House will allow me to say just two things on this Motion. The first is to express our gratitude to the House for being so good as to give us both stages of this Bill to-day. I think everybody in the House, and probably outside as well, must recognise the exceptional urgency of this problem, and feel bound to co-operate in all means which tend towards its solution. That is the first thing I want to say, and the second is this, that if and when the Bill passes from another place and becomes law, I hope I may respectfully venture to suggest to the local authorities throughout the country that they will take note of that fact and that they will not hesitate to put the provisions of the Bill into operation in any area where the circumstances of unemployment seem to justify that course.

Mr. HAYDAY: I would like to ask the Minister in charge of the Bill whether he can give us now any indication as to works already in hand or in immediate anticipation, and in view of the discussion on the new Clause defeated in Committee, can we expect from the Department that local authorities in conjunction with themselves will be encouraged to recognise in the spirit the new Clause defeated in Committee?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I desire to associate myself with my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland in thanking
the House for the great expedition with which it has given us this Bill. I am sorry to say that we have to-day in Greater London 100,000 men unemployed, and of these 70,000 are ex-service men, to whom we are, of course, under a very serious obligation. The House realises the need for meeting that as far as possible, and we are much obliged for the promptitude with which we have got this Bill. As regards new arterial roads around London, my hon. Friend knows that the London County Council have been pleased—and we are very grateful to them—to raise half the cost by way of a county rate, and the Ministry of Transport have found the other half. This Bill, as now amended—and amended in accordance with their request—will enable them to proceed with greater expedition.
With regard to the inner parts of London, the Ministry have increased the number of main roads in regard to which they will give assistance, and they are already in communication with fourteen borough councils in London with respect to the maintenance and reconditioning of, so far, over 30 roads. Here, again, part of the obligation is met by a grant from the Ministry of Transport, and the other part by the local authority—in this case by a borough and not a county rate. It has been decided to endeavour to meet the local authorities as far as possible by allowing them loans on as easy terms as possible. As regards arterial road schemes and inner main roads in the provinces, schemes are before 23 authorities now respecting the maintenance, widening, resurfacing, paving, and so on, of some 30 main roads,
and I am glad to say that men are already on road work at Brighton, Leicester, Birmingham, Preston, Ipswich, Norwich, Plymouth, Bournemouth, Reading, and Nottingham. Altogether, 25 provincial authorities have now under consideration schemes for new arterial roads.
Again, as my hon. Friend knows, the Ministry of Health has hastened the layout of sites and the work of sewerage around London, and a circular has been issued to local authorities with substantial housing schemes urging them -to take material steps in this direction. Apart from all that, we have done what we can to keep work going at the ordnance factory at Woolwich, and also at Enfield. The Cabinet Committee on Unemployment is still at work, and, quite apart from the various schemes that I have mentioned, we are examining all propositions which seem to us to be feasible to meet the emergency in which we find ourselves. I should like to say how much obliged we are to the local authorities, London and provincial—heavily burdened as many of them are—for the great loyalty, good-will and expedition with which they are helping us in this matter. The only other point is with regard to wages. I do not know whether I can add anything in regard to this, except to say that it is all being done now through the local authorities, which is a different state of affairs from that of the old days to which my hon. Friend referred. I have no reason to suppose that under this Bill the work will be done otherwise than under conditions which are quite fair to those engaged in it.

2.0 P.M.

Mr. T. WILSON: While this Bill is not so wide as we should have liked to see it, we are not going to stand in the way of any Bill which is going to ameliorate the conditions of the people who are unemployed. I think the Government may rely upon the local authorities doing their utmost to carry out the provisions of the Bill. I would likewise appeal to Members of this House to use their influence with the local authorities in their constituencies. I believe that Members can do a great deal of good by encouraging local authorities, and indicating to them how the Bill can be operated and what is the intention of Parliament in connection with it. I
can only hope that there will not be very much necessity for putting it into operation; the less the necessity for operating it the better for the people of this country. I hope that the Bill will be the means of bringing comfort to the homes of those people who may be unemployed during the coming winter.

Mr. JESSON: We read in the Press this morning of a gigantic scheme connected with the development of the Severn for purposes of electric power. According to what is stated, there is a suggestion that that scheme will find work for 250,000 workers for seven years. Having regard to the fact that a number of us will certainly be bombarded with questions as to when the scheme is going to be put into operation, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if he has anything to say in connection with it, and whether he will expedite it in every possible way?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: As a London Member, I should like to make one or two short observations. The first is to thank the Minister of Labour for the new Clause in the Bill, and for the great activity and sympathy that he has shown in dealing with the case put before him by the representatives of the London boroughs. Certainly the London borough for which I speak did not think that it was well treated under the Bill as originally drafted. As there were no arterial roads in Chelsea, it was obvious that Chelsea would receive no benefit under the original scheme. Under the extension, I hope that it will, and on that account I am grateful to the Government for their new Clause. At the same time, I cannot help thinking that they would have been well advised if they had still further extended the scope of this Bill. I believe that it would have been better not to have restricted the Exchequer grants to road making, but to have given a Treasury grant to any approved scheme put forward by one of the great local authorities. I believe that sooner or later the Government will come round to that, and, speaking for myself, I would say, the sooner the better. Unemployment is like a snowball; when it begins it is comparatively easy to deal with, but as it goes rolling on and on it becomes more difficult and more expensive. On that account, I should have said that it would have been better here and now for the Cabinet boldly to face the problem, and
say that they would give an Exchequer grant of 50 per cent. to any approved scheme, whether for the building of roads, for drainage, or for necessary repairs to our great public services. It may be said that a grant of that kind would really be a grant in aid of the rates. That is obviously true. At the same time unemployment is not a local problem. You cannot deal with unemployment as if it was a question like mending of roads or the erection of public buildings in a particular locality. Unemployment is the direct result of national causes, and on that account it should be dealt with as a national question and should be paid for, if grants are necessary, in great part, if not in whole, from the Exchequer. Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for what he said I cannot help expressing my regret that the Bill does not go further and cover all approved schemes.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): The hon. Member (Mr. Jesson) addressed a question to the Minister of Labour to which he has asked me to reply, with reference to the great scheme which is mentioned in the Press this morning of work in connection with electricity and transport on the Severn. I am not in a position at the moment to say more than that that scheme is the result of a most careful and detailed examination which has been made by the Director-General of Civil Engineering of the Ministry of Transport, and that it is not yet possible for me to say whether it will be available for unemployment. With reference to the observations of the hon. Baronet (Sir S. Hoare). I think he perhaps overlooked for the moment that this is an Emergency Bill dealing with machinery only for the acquisition of land for certain purposes. The questions he mentioned are questions of great importance. They are not being lost sight of, and it has been stated from this Bench several times recently that there is a Cabinet Committee sitting very frequently considering the whole of these questions and considering whether it is possible to help forward this work. To have put matters of the description the hon. Baronet mentioned into the Bill would have raised acute controversy of various kinds, and might have done what the rest of us desire to avoid, namely, delayed the passage of the Bill, which is
very urgently needed in order that work may be commenced in the country.

Mr. McGUFFIN: I should not have thought it necessary to intervene in this important matter had it not been that the new Clause proposed by the hon. Member opposite failed to receive the approval of the House. I am very jealous with regard to trade union rates. The reason I rise to speak is because I know one instance, and my colleague beside me is aware of it too, where a public body actively intervened for the purpose of preventing a contractor paying a certain rate of wages which he was prepared to pay in connection with a public contract. It is rather disgraceful that that should be the case. I have heard it suggested that few public bodies will do so, òut I have a specific case before me, and I appeal to the Minister at least to make it a condition, where a minimum is not recognised, that a report on the matter should be forwarded to his Department from the public body concerned. It is only right that they should have some assurance upon this matter, for while I am not suspicious of public bodies as a rule, I am afraid, after all, where they can reduce expense in connection with an undertaking by engaging those who are perhaps not best qualified for the work, they would be more inclined to take that course than to engage others who are capable of doing the work better. I appeal to the Minister in charge to look into the matter and in particular, in respect of the suggestion I have made in connection with certain public bodies that I am not free to mention to-day, at least to take that course in connection with engaging the men.

Orders of the Day — WOMEN, YOUNG PERSONS AND CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): called on Captain Bowyer.

Captain BOWYER: In view of the other Clauses which are on the Paper I do not propose to move any of my Clauses on page 4686 of the Order Paper, but if
the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Seddon), whose. name appears with mine for the Clause on page 4687 [Employment of women and young persons in shifts], is in the House, I will give way to him. If he is not here, I will move it.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is doubtless agreeable to other hon. Members whose names are attached to the earlier Clauses. Does the hon. Member for Durham (Major Hills) agree to that?

Major HILLS: I believe that is the most convenient course. There are two points on these Amendments. The first is whether two shifts are to be sanctioned and the second point is the hours within which they are to be sanctioned. Those two points are best raised in the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hanley. But I should like to know whether the Government intends to adopt that Clause, for there is no Amendment on the Paper in the name of any Member of the Government?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We can only hear that when we arrive at the Clause. I think the hon. Members concerned are willing that we should pass to that Clause, which gives an opportunity of raising all the points.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Employment of women and young persons in shifts.)

"(1) The Secretary of State may, subject to the provisions of this Section, make Orders authorising the employment of women and young persons of the age of sixteen years and upwards in any factory or workshop at any time between the hours of six in the morning and ten in the evening on any weekday except Saturday, and between the hours of six in the morning and two in the afternoon on Saturday, in shifts averaging for each shift not more than eight hours per day.

(2) An Order under this Section may be made in respect of any specified factory or workshop, or in respect of any class or group of factories or workshops, and shall be subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may consider necessary for the purpose of safeguarding the welfare and interests of the persons employed in pursuance of the Order, and shall include a condition empowering the Secretary of State to revoke the Order in the event of noncompliance with the conditions thereof, or in the event of it appearing to the Secretary of State that abuses of any description have arisen out of the employment of any persons in pursuance of the Order.

(3) The Secretary of State may by Order direct that such conditions as he may consider necessary for the purpose of safeguarding the welfare and interests of the persons employed shall apply to the employment in day shifts of young persons who may lawfully be so employed under the provisions of the Factory and Workshops Acts, 1901 to 1911.

(4) Notwithstanding anything in this Section an Order under this Section may permit the employment in any factory or workshop in such shifts as aforesaid of young persons under the age of sixteen years who are at the commencement of this Act so, employed in that factory or workshop.

(5) If the conditions imposed by any Order made under this Section are not complied with the factory or workshop shall he deemed not to be kept in conformity with the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901.

(6) This Section shall remain in force for a period of five years from the commencement of this Act and no longer, and any Order made under this Section shall, unless previously revoked by the Secretary of State in pursuance of his powers under this Section, remain in force for a like period." —[Captain Bowyer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Captain BOWYER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
All Members of the House will have seen and read the Report of the Departmental Committee which was set up some time ago and, I believe, reported almost within the last few days. I think the Report was printed and issued to Members about three days ago. It is perfectly true this is a very big question, a very grave question, and one which must be looked at from two sides which seem to be quite separate, but which in the end, really can be taken as being factors in the same problem. You can either look at this problem of the two-shift system from the point of view of industry, of economics, of production, of employment and unemployment or, on the other hand, you can look at it from the point of view of the material comfort of the worker. Questions of health, questions of hours, questions of family life, all come into that side of the problem. Really these two problems interlace one with the other, and they are both deserving of the very serious consideration of the House. On the one hand it is intolerable to me to propose that the two-shift system should be given legislative sanction if I am assured that for medical reasons, for reasons of health, it is against the in-
terest of those who are going to be employed under it. I would have nothing to say to it, if I am convinced by medical evidence that the health or the comfort of the workers is materially jeopardised. Members of the Labour party, as well as other hon. Members, should look at this problem, not solely from the comfort of the worker, and not solely from the economic standpoint, but from the point of view of the comfort of the worker and the benefit of industry as a whole. There is a great conflict of evidence in the statements which have been circulated amongst Members of Parliament on this matter. A week or so ago the Labour party issued a document on "The Two-shift System for Women and Young Persons. What it means and why we oppose it." On the other hand we have the Report issued by the Select Committee of which my hon. and learned Friend (Major Hills) was Chairman. There is great conflict of evidence between these two documents, and I wish to emphasise the way in which the evidence conflicts. I would point out that sitting on that Committee were Members who had the full interests of the Labour party at heart. This conflict of evidence between the Labour party document and the Select Committee's Report is the more amazing in view of the fact that all the Members of the Select Committee, including those who have at heart essentially the Labour party interests, signed the Report. So far as I can see, there is no Minority Report. Therefore, we may take it that the Members of the Committee who heard the evidence came to their conclusions unanimously. The new Clause which I am proposing is, as far as it can be made, precisely that in the terms of the finding of the Select Committee. The Members of the Labour party will doubtless refer to the Labour Conference at Washington. At the beginning of their document they say:
At the same time the Government included a Clause, not only totally outside the Conventions of the Washington Conference, but directly against the spirit of those Conventions.
It is true that in Committee, Clause 2 had certain provisions in regard to the two-shift system, but that was taken out of the Bill by an Amendment moved, I believe, by the Labour party. Paragraph 19 of the Select Committee's Report deals with the question as to
whether the two-shift system is against the spirit of the Washington Convention. It says—
It has been suggested that the proposal to employ women and young persons on a two-shift system is inconsistent with the spirit of the Conventions adopted by the International Labour Conference at Washington. This criticism appears to be unfounded. The Washington Conference adopted two Conventions dealing with the employment of women and young persons at night. Both of these prohibited the employment of women and young persons between the hours of 10 p.m. and 5 a.m., but there is nothing in the Conventions which is inconsistent in any way with employment on a two-shift system during the day. On the contrary, it was recognised in the debates on the Convention that employment on a two-shift system during the day was admissible. On both Conventions proposals were discussed to substitute for the period of 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. either the period 10 p.m. to 4 a.m. or 11 p.m. to 5 a.m., for the purpose of enabling a system of two-shift of 8 hours each, with an hour's interval in the course of a shift, to be worked during the day. These proposals were not carried, but not on the ground that the two-shift system in itself was undesirable, and there was nothing in the debates to suggest that there was any body of objection to a two-shift system between the limits laid down by the Convention.
That is as plain as a pikestaff, and the statement in the Labour party document that anything has been done against the spirit of the Washington Conference is to me unintelligible. There are some very interesting words which follow in the Committee's Report.
In fact the Italian labour delegate said, 'As a matter of principle I am not opposed to the system of shift working; on the contrary I see in the system of working by shifts the possibility of reducing the hours of labour without interfering with production by means of working in two shifts.'
There are many ways in which the evidence given in the Labour party document, which seems to sum up the objections, as they see them, to the two-shift system, conflicts with the evidence given in the Report of the Select Committee. I will refer to one. The Labour party, as far as I can understand their objections, seem to base, their objections on several headings: bad meal-times, late work on the second shift; irregular meal hours, and discomfort and ill-health for the workers.
On page 7 of the Select Committee's Report there is the following statement:
Generally speaking we received no confirmation of these fears either from the
workers themselves or from the factory inspectors or doctors.
There may be some explanation of these inconsistencies, but I would point out that in the list of labour organisations given on the front page of the Labour party document, are the names of the Women's Trade Union League, the National Federation of Women Workers, and the Amalgamated Union of Co-operative and Commercial Employés and Allied Workers. These organisations gave evidence before the Select Committee as to the discomfort and ill-health which might be caused to the workers under the two-shift system. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Members of the Select Committee came to their conclusions without having heard evidence from organisations upon which the Labour party rely in the document which they have issued against the two-shift system. The gains of the two-shift system are (1) reduction in hours for the worker—it would certainly lead to a reduction in hours—(2) increased production, (3) increased efficiency, because it is bound to lower the cost of production, and (4) decreased unemployment. I would let these four economic advantages go by the board if I were convinced that the two-shift system was against health and militated against the comfort of those employed, but I hope to show, and the evidence of the Select Committee bears it out, that the system is not against the health or the comfort of the worker. Granted that the health and the comfort of the worker are not imperilled under this system, in fact the workers themselves prefer it.

Mr. SUGDEN: No.

Captain BOWYER: We shall have evidence about that. If you admit that the health and the comfort of the workers are not imperilled, you must look at this question as one for the welfare of industry as a whole. Although it may well be that some hon. Members in their capacity as members of trade unions have primarily to think of the wellbeing and comfort of the workers, they must remember that when they are in this House they are not only trade unionists but legislators, and they must look upon this matter from the point of view of industry as a whole. The Labour party paper summing up the whole of this controversy has two headlines, "The Output Dog "and "The Two-Shift
Slave." That is a misrepresentation, because it cannot be that the Members on that side of the House are less keen about the welfare of industry than the Members on this. Are Members on that side not as keen on greater output as we are? One must not confuse questions of health and comfort and questions of efficiency. If we provide for conditions of health and comfort, then let us have the two-shift system if it is for the benefit of the nation as a whole. There are many other passages in the Report to which I might refer, but I submit that the Home Secretary, under the terms of the Clause, is not only given ample opportunity to, but in the exercise of his great office he will, see to it that all the comforts and safeguards for the workers which are definitely referred to therein will be carried into effect. Take the case of canteens or that of earlier hours of work. It may be that a specific firm will not be granted the privilege of the two-shift system unless the workers who are to begin at six o'clock live near the premises. That is commonsense, and the Home Secretary would make that a first charge on his attention in dealing in his administrative capacity with the powers under the new Clause.
Against the system we have the Labour party. We are bound to conclude that that is so because of the document which is headed "The Labour Party," which I suppose has been sent to all Members. We are also bound to conclude that the 11 labour organisations whose names are printed on the first page of that document are also against it. On the other side we have first the unanimous recommendation of this Clause by the Select Committee. The Clause is taken verbatim from the Report of the Select Committee. Then we have the National Union of Societies for equal citizenship. I may refer to a letter written by the three secretaries to that body in the "Manchester Guardian "on 21st July, in which they say:
We are of opinion that in the economic interests of women it is greatly to be desired that Clause 2 of the Bill (legalising the employment of women on the two-shift system between the hours of six a.m. and ten p.m.) which has been deleted in Committee should be restored in a form which allows for two shifts, even though these would consist of less than eight hours each. With the universal adoption of a shorter working day, more and more industries tried to run on the continuous shift system. To restrict the range of women's employment by debarring
them from working on the shift system would be to force them into already overcrowded works with consequent bad wages and poor conditions.
The third body is the Women's Political and Industrial Leagues, and the fourth is the London Society of Women's Service. Then there is the Women's Employment Committee during reconstruction which is not in existence now but reported in 1919. Summing up my view I have always been out for equality between men and women. It seems to me that the Labour party, by opposing this proposal, are inconsistent with many speeches which I have heard in this Chamber and upstairs from members of the Labour party advocating equal rights for men and women. If you are going to penalise women and going always to include women with young persons you leave women as distinct from men severely handicapped in the race for life. The new Clause contains ample safeguards for the health and comfort of the workers employed on a two-shift system, and it tends towards providing against unemployment, and bringing about shorter hours of work. We are bound to support it once we are satisfied that it does not militate against the health or comfort of the worker but tends to increased efficiency, which at this hour more than ever before in the history of our country is of the utmost importance.

Mr. SEDDON: I beg to second the Motion. The War has revealed certain lessons which, in the interests of industry as well as of women and young persons, ought to have due consideration given to them. When this Bill was before the House on a former occasion great exception was taken to the provisions, and the Government, I think wisely, saw that there was an overwhelming opinion in this House, notwithstanding the opposition, that the position of women and young persons had assumed a new aspect altogether, which had arisen from the experience of the War and the necessities of our industrial system. So the Select Committee was set up, and on this point I must pay a tribute in passing to the hon. and learned Gentleman who presided over that Committee. He not only brought a wealth of forensic knowledge to the deliberations, but a keen analytical mind, and it is certain that these recommendations were not carried on a wave of emotionalism or sex determination,
but on the facts that were brought to the notice of the Committee. On that Committee there were two other persons for whom I have the highest regard. I have known them for a quarter of a century. There was Mr. Appleton, who stands not only for sound trade unionism but for sound politics as well. Mr. Appleton has been connected with the General Federation of Trade Unions, a body which has been a useful factor in the life of the trade unions of this country. There was also on the Committee Miss Julia Parley. No one will doubt her ability or her zeal for her sex and for the working classes. I remember that many years ago she undertook what was a heroic act. It was on the question of the Poor Law system of the country. Although there was no necessity to get actual first-hand information, she became a common tramp and went from workhouse to workhouse to see what was the condition of women when they came under the Poor Law system. From that date up to the present time she has been honoured as a respected leader of women, especially among the working classes. The Committee came to a conclusion which is embodied in this new Clause.
What is the genesis of the opposition to the Clause? I do not want to be personal, but I have in my hand a document from an organisation which contains many respected names. When I compare those names with the names I have just given, I do not think that either their standing or their experience merits the same appreciation. There is Mr. Sidney Webb. He is a very diligent student of economics and social conditions, but he seems to assume that by dictionary phrases and the compilation of statistics you are going to make the world happy for evermore. His knowledge of the trade union movement is nil, so far as actual work is concerned. He has been studying it from afar, and his deductions do not square with the actual experience of some of us who have been in the trade union movement on its administrative side. There are other names. Without disrespect to the hon. and noble and other ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Sidney Webb is the brains of this particular Committee. He has come to the conclusion, upon purely speculative theory, that it is a wrong principle to employ, so far as the two-shift systems are concerned.

Mr. LAWSON: What organisation is the hon. Member referring to?

Mr. SEDDON: My hon. Friend is on the Committee. It is the International Association for Labour Legislation, and on the executive are Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, Mr. C. D. Burns, Mrs. Barbara Drake, Mr. A. Greenwood, Major J. W. Hills, Miss B. L. Hutchins, Mr. John Lawson, Miss Mary MacArthur, Mrs. C. D. Rackham, the Hon. Alex Shaw, Mr. Ben C. Spoor, Miss Gertrude Tuckwell, and Mr. Sidney Webb. I am not impugning the motives of these people, but I do say that they are divorced from the realities of the situation and the lessons that the War revealed to us on this particular question. It is perfectly true that they are supported by very powerful trade unions. I have received a number of telegrams.

Major HILLS: The International Association for Labour Legislation is a well-known and old-established body, and there is no sort of party affiliation. It draws members from all parties, and on the committee and in the membership every school of thought is represented.

Mr. SEDDON: I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will not think I am making any personal attack on him. In the pamphlet read by the Mover of this new Clause the Labour party frankly admit their opposition to the two-shift system. That is the party attitude.

Mr. LAWSON: What I object to is the assertion that the Labour party's opposition sprang from this organisation. It sprang from experience.

Mr. SEDDON: This body has been very active, and it is endorsing the action taken up by the Labour party.

Major HILLS: I must protest again. I am Deputy-Chairman of that body, and it is entirely a non-party body. The only interest that we have is to see that the Washington Convention is carried out.

Mr. SEDDON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has compelled me to refer to the letter which in common with other Members I have received. They go on to express exactly the sentiments of the Labour party in the document which they have published against this proposal. Does the hon. and gallant Member take exception to that?

Major HILLS: I do not accept that.

Mr. SEDDON: There are certain trade unions supporting it, especially in the cotton trade. I have received more than one telegram from the large organisations in that industry. Under the new Clause proposed, that industry will not be touched, because the strength of their organisation makes it impossible for any Home Secretary to inflict on the industry something it does not want. But there are other industries, and I want to speak particularly of that, which is the staple industry of the constituency represented by the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton). I mean the glass industry. During the inquiry, from that industry there were representations made, not only by the employers, but by the workmen. The workmen's representative pointed out that, so far as women and young persons were concerned, unless the two-shift system was continued the industry would not only suffer, but would practically be destroyed. You cannot in some manufacturing processes disregard the laws of nature. In the glass industry there must be continuous working, and for that industry, which affects vitally 100,000 people, the one-shift system would be ruinous and would bring disaster upon that community.

Mr. SEXTON: Glass and certain other industries may be exempted under the Bill and are embodied in the Washington Convention which the Bill proposes to carry out.

Mr. SEDDON: If you are going to allow this Clause, place it entirely under the guidance and jurisdiction of the Home Office.

Mr. SEXTON: This Clause gives the system a wholesale application.

Mr. SEDDON: My hon. Friend says that there should not be a wholesale application of this system. He admits it is good for St. Helens because the life of the community is at stake there. An hon. Member told me yesterday that the Dunlop Tyre Company have said practically definitely that, unless this is conceded by this House, that one firm will have to displace the labour of 500 women, which may jeopardise the whole of that industry. During the War we brought in large numbers of women into industry and many new industries were made
possible by women's labour. You want to say now that because the War is over those women who served you are of no account, and that you are to stand by what you think is principle, and this great army of women, who were not only of service but saved the country, are to have no consideration whatever. Take the position in Glasgow. During the War, in the bakery trade many women patriotically took the place of the men who went to the War, and many of those women are the widows of men who fell in the War. The male portion of the trade union in Glasgow have said that women shall not be employed in the bakeries. It was women's work before the War, during the War, and now, and yet they say that these women shall not enter into the bakeries, because of the power of a particular trade union in Scotland. Surely, if there is any honesty in this talk of equality of sex at least you will give to the women the opportunity of earning their daily bread in the industries of the country. We have enfranchised a large number of women, and we have a large body of them who cannot hope for a decent existence unless they are permitted to enter into the industries of the country. I join with my hon. and gallant Friend in saying that no industry should be conducted so as to jeopardise the health of the women and children of this country, and that no industry should be carried on which wishes to exploit the real wealth of the country, namely, the women and children. But when we come to legislate we have got to remember the place of the women in modern industry, and if we can make regulations that will safeguard their health and protect them against wrong then we should enable them to take part in the economic struggle, and to build up industry. That I think is our moral responsibility and our obvious duty. I never in the whole of my life gave more hearty support to any proposal than I am giving to this. I say on behalf of the women, and on behalf of the young persons, whom we want to get, not into blind alleys but into regular occupations, I have the greatest possible pleasure in seconding this Clause.

Mr. BELL: I ask the House to reject this Clause for various reasons. I do not ask them to do so because I have any objection to the two-shift system as a system, but because I have an objection to the two-shift system as it is proposed
to be applied to women and young persons. I am prepared to argue that, so far as women and young persons are concerned, it is not a good thing for them. It is all very well to argue about equality of sex, but why if the sexes are to be equal so far as employment is concerned should women and young persons be debarred from working at night? So that there is not equality of sex so far as employment is concerned, and even those who have moved this new Clause are not prepared to argue that there is equality of sex. We all know that the two-shift system, so far as women and young persons are concerned, came into operation during the War, and when so much is being made just now about some industries being continuous processes and all the rest of it, I wish somebody would tell us whether those industries had their continuous processes before the War or not. If they were continuous before the War, why is it necessary to have those which arose during the War in order to continue those which were carried on before the War? I was rather struck in reading the Report of the Second Reading of this Bill to find that hon. Members on all sides of the House were unanimous in condemning the two-shift system except one hon. Member, who said that there was no justification for seeking the continuance of war conditions in peace time unless they could be shown to be advantageous to the people employed. This particular Clause was discussed in Committee. It was seriously discussed, and was deleted by 22 votes to 5. Why on earth, after a decision of that kind in a Grand Committee, a Departmental Committee was set up I do not understand.
I want to say one or two things about that Departmental Committee, because if there is one organisation in the country that ought to have been represented on a body that was going to inquire into the conditions of employment of women and young persons, it surely should have been the great textile industry. I have in my hands some comments which show that the Joint Committee of the Industrial Women's Organisation have some rather serious things to say with regard to the Committee. They say that their committee, which gave evidence through two of its members representing about one million organised women, were surprised to find that that evidence was treated as of less importance than that
of a small number of individual workers selected, not through their organisation, but by some other methods which are not described. Then I have also in my hand a description of one of those methods. I am told that Miss Symons, who gave evidence for the National Federation of Women Workers, was accompanied by one of their workers who had worked until recently on the shift system at Dunlop's. After she had given her evidence three girls were brought up by their employers to give evidence on the other side, but they were not selected by their fellow workers; they were picked out by the management.
From my experience among women workers in Lancashire—and I have in the organisation of which I happen to be secretary over ten thousand women workers, I sit on the executive committee of an amalgamation which represents over one hundred thousand women workers, and I am also connected with the larger body of textile workers containing many more still—I venture to say, take any question you like affecting the women workers of Lancashire or of the country generally, if you allow the employer or manager to be present and question some of their own women about things they want them to say, women workers will too often say what they are wanted to say by their employers. I am saying what I have had experience of, for I have had time after time to protest to employers when the very same women who have told the employer one story in his room have come into my office and have told an entirely different story. Therefore I am sorry the Departmental Committee seem to have attached so much importance to some of the evidence put before them. I am not prepared to attach as great an amount of importance to the evidence of individual workers as I am prepared to attach to that of representative women speaking on behalf of women's organisations.
What does that Departmental Committee say? They say that the continuance of the two-shift system is required during the transition period of demobilisation and resettlement, and so long as the essential industries are hampered in production by a shortage of male labour. Does the Departmental Committee, in spite of what was stated in this House,
mean to say it is only to be continued so long as there is a shortage of male labour? If so, then what becomes of the argument about equality of sexes Then they go on to say there has been no suggestion that it would be adopted in the great textile industry, or in some other of the, staple industries of the country. The hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Seddon) said that this new Clause would not apply to the textile industry, and what did he give as his reason? Not that it would be good for the textile industry, not that it would be good for the workers, but because their unions would keep it out.

Mr. SEDDON: They do not want it.

3.0 P.M.

Mr. BELL: If that is the argument to be used—that the strength of the organisations will keep the two-shift system out, it is because the workpeople through their organisations believe it would not be a good thing for the workers in the organisation. I might go on quoting from that Report, but there are some arguments I want to use altogether apart from it. I want to argue, taking the health standpoint, that to prolong the hours of labour, I do not mean of individual workers, from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. is bound to be a bad thing for the workers engaged in those industries. I am going to admit there has been a great improvement in the atmosphere of many of our factories in recent years, but there are employers in this House who, I am certain, will agree that the atmosphere in many of our factories, especially in the summer time, and at about three o'clock in the afternoon, is not conducive to good health. I have worked in a factory myself, and from my own experience on a warm day I say that at three o'clock in the afternoon one begins to feel very fagged. Even from the recruiting returns, and remembering all that has been said about the C 3 population, I think it may be gathered that where you have the largest number of women workers employed in industry, there you find the worst physique among those who come forward for the Army. It is often argued that for women and young persons to commence work before 6 a.m., which frequently means leaving home soon after 5 a.m., to go to work without breakfast., and to have to work two or three hours before they get a meal,
is surely a condition of things that is not conducive to the good health either of the women themselves or of the children that they may bear. It has been argued in this House, before I was a Member, and it has been argued on platforms and in the Press all over the country, that for a married woman to turn out early in the morning in order to follow her employment, with a young child in her arms, which she has to carry to some neighbour's house to be nursed, is not a good thing for the country, and I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Hanley, who some of us used to be pleased to follow, now seems to be the mouthpiece for every retrograde movement. We all know it will be a step backwards if anything is done to compel women and young persons to again start work before six a.m. In our great textile industry quite recently the work-people themselves asked for a later morning start. Our employers, because they were sensible men, agreed that it would be for the benefit of the workers, and we came to an agreement with them that the later morning start should come into operation. To ask that women and young persons, in spite of all the evidence, should be again called upon to start work at 6 o'clock in the morning is a big step backwards. There are other arguments against the two-shift system, with all that it entails. There are some members of a family going out to work at 6 o'clock in the morning, and others going out to work at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, and returning home after 10 o'clock at night, and the house having to be carried on from before 6 in the morning until after 10 at night is not a good thing for home life. It is not a good thing for women and young persons, especially females, to be out on our streets after 10 o'clock at night returning from their employment. It is for these reasons that I am opposing this proposed new Clause.
Other arguments were adduced in favour of the Clause. It was argued that it would decrease unemployment, I do not know where they get their evidence. With all the unemployed on our streets to-day, surely it is not a good thing for the country that we should make more provision for the employment of women and young persons, so long as we do not find employment for all the men. I am afraid that behind a suggestion of this kind is a desire, not to find employ-
ment merely for women and young persons, but to find employment for a class of labour which can be employed at a cheaper rate than men, and that those who are so anxious to find employment for women and young persons do not desire to pay a living wage to men, and they do not seem to care—I am sorry to have to say it—how many men there may be unemployed, so long as they can carry on their industry with the labour of women and young persons at a cheaper rate than they could employ men. What we want in this country is a healthy manhood, an employed manhood, and if we cannot find work for all our men, for goodness sake let us try to keep our women and young persons at home a bit longer, and give them a chance. Until we get to the time when we can find employment for all our men, I hope we shall not hear anything more of the argument that we are diminishing unemployment by finding work for women and young persons.
Who are they who support this particular Clause? I find there are a few political organisations of women, but, on the other side, I find every great industrial organisation, including women in their membership, of the contrary view, and only the other Saturday, when this question was discussed at a Conference of textile workers, representing the whole of the textile industry, a resolution was passed protesting against this particular Clause being inserted in the Bill. They did more than protest. Contained in that resolution was a determination, and a decision, that they would use the power of their organisation, and strike against any attempt to introduce the early morning start again into the textile industry. I have been connected with the textile industry since I was 13 years of age, when I worked full time in the mill. I have been connected with it all my life since, and, as I said before, I represent now an organisation of women workers. We are opposed to this system in the interests of the women themselves.
When it is argued that, because women did this work during the War, they should be allowed to continue it, I would point out that young persons under 16 worked during the War. Why not allow them to continue? It is said that some of the women workers themselves desire its continuance. I know workers who worked on night shifts, and worked all
night during the War, who foolishly said they preferred it to working during the day, because it gave them more liberty during the day, and they could go to the pictures and enjoy themselves. Women, like men, are sometimes foolish, and it is because we know that some of our women workers, like some of our men workers, desire to do things which are not good for them, that we have our factory inspectors, and various other things in operation to prevent women and men alike from doing exactly what they desire. So that it is not a strong argument to say that, because some women workers desire this thing to be continued, it is good for the women themselves. I am prepared to say, from my experience amongst women workers, that the women workers of this country do not want the two-shift system, and therefore we ask the House to look at this matter, not from the point of view altogether of the welfare of the industry, but from the point of view of the welfare of women and young persons in the country; and if they will look at it, as I hope every Member will, from the point of view of whether they would like their own women and children to start work before 6 o'clock in the morning, or continue work, or be on the streets, after 10 o'clock at night, then I am certain they will vote against this new Clause.

Major GRAY: In venturing to offer to the House a few comments on this proposal, may I say I am not inspired by any organisation of workers or employers, but am speaking of the things I do know, after a lifelong acquaintance with women and young persons as described in this Clause, and with their homes and home conditions. I often listen with very considerable interest to the speeches delivered in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley (Mr. Seddon). He will forgive me if I say I never heard him less effective and less conclusive than this afternoon; but I am not surprised, because he had a bad case. The Mover of the new Clause stated that if he were satisfied that this would injuriously affect the health or comfort of women and young persons he would not proceed with it. Had he a closer knowledge of the homes of the poor and the homes of the workers, he would have needed no medical evidence to assure him that, to say the very least of it, employment at 6 o'clock in the
morning cannot be beneficial either to the health or comfort. Does anyone suggest that it is beneficial for a girl of 14? That is a young person. A young person is a person between the ages of 14 and 16, as defined by the Education Act, 1918.

Mr. INSKIP: There is no suggestion in the Clause that anybody below the age of 16 shall be so employed.

Major GRAY: As I understand, the definition of a young person is as I have given it. It is certainly in one Act of Parliament. But assume it to be the age of 16. I put it to the advocates of this Clause, has any one of them ever listened to the clatter of clogs on the cobbles of a Lancashire industrial town, when the feet of the little workers are wending their way to the mills, while the listener is lying comfortably in bed. Some two hours later the street lamps are put out! She is trudging along those streets in all weathers, this little Lancashire lass, thinly clad, with shawl around her head, clattering along to the mills at an age of life when for her health, and undoubtedly for her comfort—and for the future of the race—that young girl—the future mother—ought to be within the comfort of the home, and not moving towards the mill.
"Equality of the sexes" is talked about by some. Carry it, then, to its logical conclusion. If the man and the woman in this matter of labour are to be exactly equal, will the man when he has finished his eight-hours' shift go home to the wash-tub? The woman will do so. Will the man, before he goes out at two o'clock in the afternoon, see that the meals are prepared, and the house put in order? What is to be the life of a women under this system? She will he leaving home at half-past five in the morning, or at half-past one in the afternoon, returning in the one case at half-past two, and in the other case at half-past ten p.m. What is to be the home life of the worker under conditions like that—of the wife and the children, the boys and the girls—and for what purpose? To satisfy the nation's need? I do not believe it! I heard exactly the same cry that I have listened to this afternoon when, thirty years ago, we raised in this House the age for exemption from labour from nine till 10. I heard it again when we raised it from 10 to 11. I have heard it at every stage of the uplifting of the industrial life of this country. It is with keen regret that I heard it raised again to-day.
If the industry of this nation cannot be maintained, and prosperity cannot be realised, without exploiting boys and girls at the age of sixteen, then indeed, we have entered on the down-grade in this country. But I do not for a moment believe it. I was amazed to hear the statement made by the seconder of this Motion. The representatives of the textile industries need not trouble about this Clause. Their trade unions will never work it. They are strong. They are strong, and therefore can protect their women and children. This House will impose it upon the weak! The case has not been argued on its merits. If it be good for St. Helens, it is good for the fertile industries of Lancashire. If it be bad for one, it is equally bad for the other. Here let me remark that I am not now arguing the merits of the two-shift or the three-shift system per se. I am arguing it as it applies to women and young persons, and to them and them alone.
It is a shame that we should attempt to use the necessities of war time to make gross inroads in our Factory Acts. Impose this burden upon the women and young people of this country? I know these young people. I have practically spent all my life directly in their interests. I tell the House without an instant's hesitation that, under the circumstances we are considering, the health and character both deteriorate; their educational progress is wholly stopped, and, unfortunately, it is stopped at a stage when it has not been sufficiently well-founded to exercise a lasting influence upon life. Just at the very period when, especially the girl, is open to all temptations, when she is subject to a multitude of influences which it takes perception to discover, just at that very stage you throw these young people into the vortex of industry! I say without hesitation—I have seen it in hundreds and hundreds of cases—both health and character deteriorated. The strength of life within them is not sufficient to withstand the strain, and if we can, as assuredly we can, may we not postpone their entrance to the great struggle of life until physically and mentally they are strong enough to withstand the strain? Is there a man who, when he thinks of himself when he was young, would dare to vote for this Clause'? I went through this, and I know. No power on earth would induce me to
favour a Clause which would impose upon those that which I went through. There is no man in the House who has been through it or seen it at close quarters who would vote for this Clause. The theorist, the economist, the man who views the matter from afar, and takes a superficial interest in it, who has had no personal contact with those concerned or interest in the question—I can understand him going into the Division Lobby in favour of this Clause. I assert that no real friend of the workers will vote for this Clause.
We are about to start a system of day continuation classes. This House in 1918 placed upon the Statute Book one of the most beneficent Acts of this century. What effect will this system have upon the operation of that Act? "None," I am told by some hon. Members. I suppose I ought not to be dogmatic, but I know one cannot always avoid being dogmatic, because, as I heard from the opposite Benches, "every time you open your mouth out flies a dogma." I shall try to avoid being dogmatic in the ordinary sense, and I can only, therefore, put my own experience against that of my hon. Friend. He says this will have no influence upon the young persons. I am taking some active part in the setting up of the day continuation schools in this country, and that has brought me into contact with young persons, parents, and employers pretty considerably. I hear from every quarter that this will exercise an injurious influence upon the workers at the day continuation schools. I am not alone in that view. Although I said I was not getting resolutions from any association, yet I have received several resolutions, not from trade unions, not from political organisations, but from educational authorities up and down the country, begging and praying that this Clause shall not be put into operation, be cause they foresee the injury which it will inflict on the child life of this country.
May I, in conclusion, suggest that the country does not stand in dire need, now the War is over, of a Clause of this character. The case for it has not been made out, and if it once be admitted that the Clause ought to be rejected, and the health and comfort of the women and children will be affected, the opposition to this Clause ought to succeed. I hope the Government will leave us to deal with this as we think fit, without governmental
influence. I shall not hesitate to vote against the Government on a matter of this sort. In the interests of the young child, and particularly the girl, but in the interests of the wife and mother, to whom this Clause applies, in the interests of family life, the home, and the workers, surely we ought to strain every nerve to make the house of the worker the real home of the worker. Many of the workers live in dwellings in which they have never known what real home life is and cannot know. Do not impose a further obstacle to that bliss, and to a real knowledge of home life. In the interests of the individuals immediately concerned, in the interests of the future of our race, and those who will be the offspring of those you are now striving to drive into the factory and workshop, I beg the House to reject this Clause.

Captain ELLIOT: I have been deeply moved by the effective speech of the hon and gallant Member who has just sat down. I think it has had more effect on the House than any of the other speeches, because the hon. Member is speaking with such obvious sincerity. It seems to me, however, that his remarks were scarcely germane to this proposal. If this were a proposal to raise the exemption age, then it seems to me his remarks would be germane, but I cannot see how they apply to a proposal of this kind, which alters not the age or the sex of the people you may employ, but the conditions under which they must be employed. The hon. and gallant Member said if it could be shown that this was detrimental to the health of the home life of the workers, then the House should vote against it. I do not think he made out that case, but he made out a very strong case against the employment of young persons and girls about the age of sixteen. Those of us who know the physiological influences which affect girls of that age must acknowledge the force of his proposal. He asked if in the case of the women who went out at two o'clock in the afternoon to work, would the men have to prepare the meals? Surely that is an argument against the employment of women in industry altogether and not an argument against this proposal!
The question is, would she have an easier time if she works eight hours in the middle of the day or eight hours in the afternoon and evening? I submit
that the hon. Member's zeal and sincerity have led him rather to slur over the essential points. We are not discussing whether a new class of young women and persons should be brought into industry, but we are discussing under what conditions they can be most usefully employed. We are not discussing the question whether women or young persons should be employed in industry, and that is not the question. We are discussing what factory hours would be most suitable for them. It certainly seems to me, as one who is most anxious for shorter hours of employment, that if we negative the proposal to have two shifts we wipe out of court altogether the chance of getting a really short working day. Is it practical to suggest that eventually we shall get the hours shortened to a six-hour shift, and that for the remaining hours the factory must stand idle?

Mr. SUGDEN: That is right, and it is possible.

Captain ELLIOT: I bow to the superior knowledge of the hon. Member on this question. We cannot put restrictions on a factory which would cause it to stand idle for such a long period. Take the very case of the education of a young person to which the hon. and gallant Member (Major Grey) referred. If the shift is only to be one of eight hours, is it suggested that the necessary educational facilities will have to be given at the factory? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then if they are not to be given at the factory, they will have to be still shorter, because an eight hours day would preclude the possibility of finding accommodation for continuation classes for these young persons, whereas if you shorten the day to six hours, the education of these young persons could be continued. I am not pressing this point as representing any organisation, or as a reactionary step to pass more women and young persons into the industrial mill, because it is my object to restrict them as far as possible from the meshes of that damnable net. I cannot see that the rejection of this proposal would help the ideals hon. Members have set before us, and it is for that reason that I shall support either this Clause, or the Clause which provides that there should be two shifts of six and a half hours per day. Unless the principle be admitted that it would
be a good thing to keep the machinery running as long as possible, and the workers working as short as possible, it seems to me that you cannot expect any great progress in shortening the hours of industry. Then there is the problem of the hours during which the factory is to be run, and the hours during which the workpeople are to work. It seems to me that by organisation you can get rid of that stale atmosphere, and that tendency to lassitude to which the hon. Member who moved the rejection of this Clause referred as coming on about 3 o'clock in the afternoon.
It has been said that you must not run a factory too long, but I have not such a great tenderness for the factory, and I prefer to consider the ease of the person who is working in the factory. Perhaps I am a little pessimistic in this matter, but certainly those of us who have studied the problem of fatigue in industrial factories are in favour of shortening the hours as far as this can be done. We realise that you do in many cases get a greater output with a shorter day. I am with hon. Members all the way in Shortening the hours during which the individual worker is to work, but, when hon. Members take the standpoint that the essential thing is the factory, and that it is impossible to control the hours of labour unless you control the organisation, I join issue with them. I can and I do sympathise deeply with the distrust that Members of the Labour party feel for anything which would whittle away in the very slightest the safeguards which largely by their work have been introduced for the protection of the under-dogs in industry. There is a statue in this House to that, so-called great statesman, John Bright. There is no statue to a far greater man, who did a far nobler work, and who will be remembered far longer by the workers of this country, the great Lord Shaftesbury. Do hon. Members realise that, in 1844, there was a proposal brought forward in this House to limit the hours during which children were to work to 12 per day—a limitation which that great statesman, John Bright, fought tooth and nail, and defeated?

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Was that a proposal to reduce the hours of work for children? It has been denied again and again that John Bright ever opposed the protection of children. Grown people, yes, but not children.

Captain ELLIOT: I looked it up in the Library, and I have a quotation here from a paper which the hon. Gentleman will no doubt respect, the "Westminster Gazette," in which it is stated:
In 1844, Sir James Graham proposed to reduce the working hours of children in factories to 12 per day, and Lord Ashley (Lord Shaftesbury) moved an Amendment to reduce them to 10. Bright, who was a mill-owner, attacked Ashley and defeated the proposal, and for six years that proposal was held up.

Mr. WILLIAMS: That is not the statement which the hon. and gallant Gentleman made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] He made the statement that Bright opposed a proposal to reduce the hours to 12. He is now stating that a Bill was introduced to reduce them to 12, and Bright opposed an Amendment which would have reduced them to 10. There may have been perfectly good reasons for that opposition.

Captain ELLIOT: No doubt the hon. Gentleman's Liberal feelings have been hurt, but Bright not only resisted the Amendment; he resisted and defeated the Bill. That is sufficient reason for the disgust which hon. Members opposite feel for any proposal to whittle away these limitations which they have so painfully and laboriously placed upon the Statute Book. In spite of all that, I beg them to consider the question from the point of view of the individual worker and not from the point of view of the organisation. I would put a question to those of them who have far greater experience in industrial matters than I have myself. I simply look at it from the scientific point of view of the effect on the individual worker, and I say that one would wish to shorten the hours of the worker and not of the building in which he works, and this proposal to introduce a system which as far as I can see will shorten to a great extent the hours of the individual worker deserves the careful consideration and the support of hon. Members of this House.

Mr. SUGDEN: We have discussed this question this afternoon from the academicals and theoretical standpoint, as also from the standpoint of the employé. I think it is right that the House should know that the employers of this country as a whole are against the employment of women on a two-shift basis. My hon. and gallant Friend (Captain
Elliot) very properly suggested that the real consideration was the bearing of the inopportune hours of labour upon the human being, and not upon either the machinery or the organisation of an industry. We entirely agree with him. I would like, however, to put to him this further consideration. The suggestion of a two-shift that he makes for shortening the hours of labour is not the only alternative. The textile trades (the cotton and the woollen trades) employ more women and young persons than any other trade or industry in the country. Therefore, when my hon. Friends, speaking from the Labour Benches with great expert knowledge, tell us that the employés do not desire this change, I want to say that there is no body of employers, and more especially no body of textile employers, who take the view which my hon. and gallant Friend has just suggested. Did he do us the honour to study the industries of the country, particularly those which employ women and children, he would know that during the last six years we have little by little reduced the hours of labour, and pro rata with that reduction, have in many cases increased the production of textiles. I suggest that it is a practicable and feasible proposition, by co-ordinating the factors of expert craftsmanship and machinery, and by the splendid and amicable relationships which obtain, and we hope will continue, between employers and employed, in the near future to get a more increased production with even a shorter number of hours than those he suggests. At the moment that is not practicable or possible, but employers and employed are coming together, and I suggest that it is not necessary to have the two-shift system to get the shortening of hours necessary for the workers.
What is the bearing of the two-shift system on the home and upon the health and well-being of the people? That is the first and most vital consideration. Secondly, is it possible to enable women and young persons to have their proper part and proper protection and opportunity in industry? The third consideration is to see that there is full opportunity for the employment of these young persons and women who find it essential for the maintenance of their own self-respect and upkeep of the home to take
part in industry. Fourthly—and to my mind an essential one from the employers' standpoint—we want to see that we have increased production. These are the four factors which I think should be considered, but the first and the most vital consideration is that of the health of the people, and the bearing of the two-shift system on the home, the women, and the children. What is the medical evidence before the Committee which was presided over so splendidly by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Inskip)? In passing, I deplore the fact that it is impossible for Members of this House to obtain copies of the minutes of evidence then taken. I tried at the Vote Office this afternoon, but it is not possible, and I think it is only fair to hon. Members that they should be able to peruse the evidence, and come to conclusions of their own, especially when we see, I will not say the improper method of drafting of this Report, but rather the looseness and the slackness with which conclusions are arrived at. In saying that, I do not depreciate the capacity to preside over this Committee shown by my hon. and learned Friend, for under the circumstances it was impossible for him to make a better Report. Dr. Legge, who is His Majesty's Medical Inspector of Factories "said he was "surprised that digestive disturbance was not found to result"; but he stated that there was no direct evidence of any such defects.
I have carefully scrutinised the Health and Welfare of Workers Clause in this Report. Those of us who have had opportunities of taking part in and dealing with the education of the country and the county, those of us who know the defective children, those of us who have studied, since the War, the result on the young women working in munition factories, and the cripples, and the epileptic children, and the mentally incapable children since born—comparing there with those who were born of women in industry and of women who can spend their lives in the homes—I say it is a terrible responsibility which this House will accept, does it pass this Clause, making it possible for women to work under the two-shift system. The digestive consideration is a minor consideration, although important; but we have to consider all the factors in respect to health and its bearing on the future men and women. In these days some of
these mothers are compelled to spend their time in the mills and workshops.
Something has been said about the conditions which obtain in these mills and workshops. I want to say that the employers of this country as a whole—my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches may take exception to what I am saying—are prepared to utilise every great science and scientific application they can to make the mills and workshops fit and hygienic, but the products of the textile industries, both wool and cotton, require certain conditions to make them efficient and useful which are not helpful to the health of the people employed in those industries. And I challenge my medical friends, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Elliot), who has a high position in the medical profession, and other members of that profession, to give to me any system which will make either a woollen mill or a cotton mill under the two-shift system clean, hygienic, and helpful to the work and the efficiency of the men and women who work in them.
We want to do all that is possible and to utilise everything that is known to science, irrespective of cost, but it is a very difficult matter. The workers in the cardroom to-day are breathing dust and material which comes from what they utilise and handle, which is against the health of the people, and, so long as cotton is necessary and wool must be utilised for clothing the people, these heroes in industry—and we as employers recognise the fact—have to work under these somewhat unhygienic conditions. I will say this for the textile employers as a whole, that there is not another industry which has that same co-operative consideration between the worker and the employer, one for the other, than that obtaining in the woollen and cotton industries. Whereas labour will fight this Clause, I want to tell them that we as employers mean to fight the Clause, and to see that the proper conditions obtain, for we feel that not even the balance-sheet is the most dominant consideration.
Although we have heard a good deal in this House about great cotton and woollen profits, there is no industry which is passing through such a terrible crisis financially as these industries. Yet, with all that, we say that we will not be parties to the two-shift system in the textile trades. Again, I
want to say that as an industry we have utilised all the welfare conditions which are offered by the Home Office—splendid conditions some of them are, too, and I want to pay my tribute to the Home Secretary for his help in the matter. We have done more in our industry in regard to welfare conditions than any other industry in the country. Something has been said about physique statistics in regard to recruiting, and some little time ago I asked the Secretary of State for War in a question if he would give to us the figures of the cotton, woollen, and other industrial areas of how these matters have applied, so that in respect to any further conditions of hours of labour, those considerations could be applied. For the moment he has not been able to obtain figures. I suggest that in respect to the health of the people this peculiar method of labour called the two-shift system would be against the physique and the health of the employés and of the children who are to come.
There is another consideration and factor. In our North country homes, although the women work perhaps more in factories than they do in the Southern homes, the home has a greater consideration in the life and the education and the up-bringing of the children than in other parts of the country. By education, I do not mean book-learning, but the enlargement of character. If the women of Lancashire and Yorkshire homes are to have their opportunity to enlarge, brighten and give greater vision to the children, and to give them their opportunities in the body politic, it is essential that the women should have their opportunities at home. Something may be said about cinematographs and picture halls. If this were a fitting and a proper opportunity, one would like to show that even there our Lancashire, Yorkshire and North Country women do more in their homes in the evening hours—with all the cinematograph halls in their midst, and even though they accept their position in regard to earning their bread in the mills—for their children than is done in any other part of the country. Therefore, I suggest that the domesticity of our North Country women is more pronounced than it is in the south.

Viscountess ASTOR: No.

Mr. SUGDEN: I challenge my hon. and Noble Friend to disprove my statement
that North Country women bake, cook, mend, darn, clothe, and train their children better in the homes than they do in the Southern counties. The real home life of the people will suffer if the women are to be taken from their homes and put into factories and workshops. My hon. and gallant Friend (Major Gray) always speaks with great authority on matters of education, and here again the employers in these Northern counties are utilising to the very uttermost any and every opportunity to let their employés go to the Universities to receive that training which the industrials of this country have so long and so greatly neglected in respect of industry. Why is it that the employés in the United States are more efficient and more capable in regard to many of their industries? It is because the employers there, more so than in this country, have seen the necessity of their employés entering the Universities, and being trained to understand the position and place of finance, and the position and place of labour, in regard to its monetary value in respect of production. The employers of this country have made up their minds that that splendid and magnificent Act, the Fisher Act of 1918, shall be utilised to the full. Can my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Bowyer), who moved this Motion, show me how it is possible that educational facilities shall be enlarged if this two-shift system be employed?
To my mind it would be improper to pass from this question without saying a word or two on the matter of trade. Production and output are vital and essential, but I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend, when he speaks about production and output and the necessity for greater production, to look around the markets of the country to-day, and tell me if he can say with full practical knowledge that it is a vital and essential factor that, by a two-shift system, we must improve our production, in order to be able to face the competition in the markets of the world.

Captain BOWYER: As I am challenged, may I say that we have not only to think of production, but also to think of the decrease in the cost of production, and that is vital, especially now. May I remind my hon. Friend that I said that, if it could be proved to me that this Clause
will militate against the health and comfort of the people to any serious extent, I will give up the whole economic proposals for it, and say that we will have no Clause at all.

Mr. SUGDEN: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not think that I desired to suggest that he was considering the question of production rather than health. I do not think I said that. What I said was that he suggested that by a two-shift system we could get more production. That does not obtain in those trades of which I have special knowledge. May I remind him of what I said a moment ago, namely, that in the textile trades the hours have lessened, and yet the improvement and speeding up of machinery, and the co-operation between employer and employé, have given greater production. That is a fact. I say that with scientific organisation in industry, with better education, with the better understanding between employer and employé, both working in that spirit of camaraderie which ought to obtain in all sections of industry, with more idealism, we shall get more production, and with fewer hours of labour. What is retarding production in this country to-day? Is it the employé? I say not. Is it the employer? I say not. It is due, in some degree, to the Excess Profits Duty and taxation, and if that be so—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better reserve those remarks for the next Budget.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. SUGDEN: I stand corrected, and I thank you, Mr. Speaker. What did this Committee, when it reported on this question of production, say?
We recognise that the experience of the system is limited, and the whole question has not yet passed out of the experimental stage.
I, for one, as an employer, am not prepared, after we have been experimented upon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to be experimented upon now by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. I am afraid that the dissection and anatomical surgery would be rather too difficult and too painful. Every employer of labour knows that intensive production is necessary and helpful if your country is to fulfill all her obligations and responsibilities. While, however, I deprecate any spirit of "ca-canny" on the part of either employés or employers,
I say that, if it is a question of getting production out of the blood and sinew of our workers, we in the textile trades are not prepared to do it; and I say that what obtains with us obtains through the whole gamut of the employing classes. I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend not to press this Motion to a division, but rather to give us opportunities of facing our difficulties in regard to financial and other matters, and of taking steps to meet competition. That spirit of camaraderie which should obtain through every stratum and every section of industry, whether employer or employed, will furnish the solution of the difficulties and uncertainties with which we are faced at the present time.

Mr. INSKIP: No one can doubt the sincerity of my hon. Friend who has just spoken, or the admirable sentiments which he has expressed. Whether, however, they have any very close connection with the proposal before the House I take leave to doubt. Perhaps, before I come to some of the arguments in favour of this proposal I may deal with one or two misconceptions which appear to exist as to the nature of the proposals contained in the Clause. I very much doubt if my hon. and gallant Friend beside me (Major Gray) or my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Sugden) has read the Clause as it appears on the Paper; and I doubt very much also whether my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Gray) has read the Report of the Departmental Committee, of which I had the honour to be a Member. It is not that I attach any particular importance to the Report, but I do attach importance to the evidence which was the foundation of the Report. It may be the vice of the profession to which I belong that we pay more attention to evidence than to sentiment. One of the criticisms which I should like to clear out of the way is, that this proposal will interfere with the administration of the Fisher Act of 1918. My hon. Friend opposite nods his head. Let me say to hint, and to my hon. Friend beside me, that the Fisher Act, for seven years after it comes into operation, applies only to persons up to the age of 16, while the particular proposal before the House excludes everyone except persons of the age of 16 and upwards. When the seven years have elapsed, and the continuation schools apply to persons of 16 to 18, the experimental period which is now sug-
gested will also come to an end, and the whole question will be reviewed in the light of the greater experience then obtained, and also of the experience of the Fisher Act as applied during the next seven years to young persons up to the age of 16. So far as the proposals before the House are concerned, they will not conflict, in any shape or form with the administration of the Education Act of 1918. I am sure that will relieve my hon. Friend opposite.

Mr. SUGDEN: I should like to ask my hon. and learned Friend if he has cognisance of the difficulties and the lack of opportunities in regard to adult continuation students: if he has knowledge of how the day students compare with the evening students, and of the difference the two-shift system will make to the evening students and the day continuation students?

Mr. INSKIP: My hon. Friend asks me to embark on a controversy upon the Education Act which I apprehend to be as much out of order as his own observations on the financial matters which he mentioned. I only state that, so far as the Education Act of 1918 and the continuation schools are concerned, they are nothing to do with the proposal before the House. I should like also to clear up a misconception which appears to prevail in the mind of all the speakers who have so strenuously, though sincerely, opposed this proposal. Whether it is an accident or not that they all happen to hail from Lancashire I cannot say, but with one accord they have declared that the textile industry is opposed to the present proposals. It may interest them to know that the Committee was informed that the textile industries had no intention or desire to work this system on the part of the employers or the workpeople. It therefore became of very little interest to the Committee to hear evidence, although it was not proffered, from the textile industry, and I think we expressed ourselves in our Report that we had no evidence that there would be any attempt to put it into force in that industry. My hon. Friend, who is so closely connected with the cotton industry, may be relieved to know that the Home Secretary will not force this system upon them. He will make no order until my hon. Friend puts in an application that it may be
worked in his factory, and that is the essence of the system which is proposed, that orders are to be granted by the Home Secretary upon the application of employers, who assuredly will never be able to put this system into operation unless they have the goodwill of their employés. That seems to me to be a fundamental misconception under which all my hon. Friends labour in the speeches they have made to-day, as if this was a compulsory system which is to be enacted and accepted by employers and work-people, whether they like it or not. It can only be operated by the goodwill of the workpeople and at the instance of the employers. I think the House may dismiss the textile industry from any further consideration.
A third matter I should like to clear up is that neither the House nor the Committee were the least concerned with the important and difficult questions which arise as to whether it is desirable that women and young persons of the age of sixteen and upwards should be employed in industry or not. We all have our own views, I suppose, and I suppose we should all agree that if it were possible it would be desirable to exclude women altogether, not only in their own interest but in the interest of men, who, after all, ought to bear the great burden of industry in this country. But that is not the question The question is, how are you to make the conditions most suitable for women, it being admitted that they are in industry for good or for ill; and one thing I think everyone feels is that the existing hours are too long for women, and that it is essential that we should by some means obtain their reduction. The effect of the Clause will be to reduce the existing hours, even though they be so low as 48 a week, to something like 41, or even as low as 38 hours, and surely that is not a retrograde movement but a distinct advance upon anything we have hitherto experienced. When my hon. Friends speak of the hardship which will fall upon women who are employed on the two-shift system, they must have overlooked this cardinal fact, that you will relieve the burden which at present rests upon women engaged in industry, and you can only relieve it by adopting some such expedient as the Departmental Committee has suggested shall be made the subject of experiment.
One asks whence comes the violent opposition to this proposal, if it is so advantageous as I suggest? A great deal of the opposition has been manufactured in advance, before the facts of the evidence were considered. Speaking for myself and other members of the Departmental Committee, I can say we went into the matter with a perfectly open mind. I knew very little about the question. That may be regarded as a qualification or a disqualification. At any rate, I was impressed by the evidence which came from both sides. We certainly went into it with an open mind, but as much cannot be said for some of the witnesses who came before us, and whose views we are told we ought to have adopted rather than the views of the workers themselves The memorandum which has been issued by Dr. Marion Phillips, with the imprint of the Labour party upon it, was prepared before the Committee met and before the evidence was heard. It is perfectly plain from her statement, as contained in this memorandum, which was drawn up before the evidence was heard, that she had less objection to the system if certain conditions were observed. She contemplates in the memorandum conditions under which it would be perfectly legitimate to apply the two-shift system. She says:
If there is some special need in particular trades it would be far better to deal with them by special orders for individual cases rather than by a general provision affecting all.
That is, in fact, the system which the Committee has decided to recommend; that there shall be special orders for individual cases and not a general provision affecting everybody. Let us consider what the trades are in which it is suggested this system could be introduced. Last May there were only 15,000 women working under the two-shift system. Therefore, it is not a matter of very widespread interest. I do not suggest that that is the limit to which women will be employed under the system if it is adopted in this Bill, but it is not a system which will cover the whole land. It will not be applied to the great textile and woollen trades in Lancashire and Yorkshire. Dr. Marion Phillips conceded the principle that it could be applied to two classes of industries. One was the class of industry which we call seasonal trades. She assented to the proposition that it was perfectly legitimate, subject to proper safeguards, that the two-shift
system should be used in seasonal trades. She also assented to the proposition, that it could be applied to those particular trades where continuous processes were necessary: "On the case being proved, putting the onus of proving it on the employer who applies." Therefore, Dr. Marion Phillips has assented to the proposition that in seasonal trades and in continuous process trades the system might be adopted under proper conditions.
Another witness who was called was Miss Symons, and she was prepared to admit the two-shift system in two cases. She would admit it in the classes of industry where premises are short and where machinery is not obtainable, in order to get over a temporary difficulty. That is what the Committee has recommended, and in respect of these particular trades, what the Home Office would, I suppose, consider and recommend. We have it admitted in those cases. In other cast where it is likely to be employed, it is absolutely essential to the life of the industry that the fullest output should be obtained from machinery and to will be impossible for the industry to continue in existence unless we have the two-shift system. The opposition to this is artificial. Its own advocates have admitted the principle in three cardinal classes of industries which largely engaged the attention of the Departmental Committee. When the principle is given up we simply have to look for proper conditions in the industry. We are to see that this is not permitted to anybody who is likely to work without the supervision of factory inspectors and that it is not continued after experience has shown that it is not in the interest of the workers. All those proposals are in substance contained in this Clause. We are only following the suggestion which the spokesmen of the Labour party, Dr. Marion Phillips and Miss Symons, put before us. Then it is said that the medical evidence is strong and that we ought to have refused to consider the proposal on that ground. But doctor after doctor with the ample experience gained during the War, quite impartial people, have declared that no harm would result.

Mr. BELL: Have they had the experience of their own daughters working
under the system, as some of us have had?

Mr. INSKIP: I very much suspect what my hon. Friend is speaking of is the three and not the two-shift system.

Mr. BELL: The two-shift system.

Mr. INSKIP: We did not consider it necessary to ask the doctors that, because they were speaking as doctors arid not as parents. That was the effect of their evidence. One lady expressed some doubt, not having any experience of the system at all, but they all said that no ill effects could be observed in the workers. What can this House do in the light of that? No medical evidence has been produced showing that any ill effects have resulted, and no case has been made out on medical grounds against it. The Committee on Women's Employment presided over by the hon. and gallant Member for Durham made a report which was signed by Miss Susan Lawrence and Miss Gertrude Tuckwell. Miss Lawrence was invited to give evidence, but found herself occupied on the day on which she was invited to attain. But at any rate we have that Report signed by these ladies, whose bona fides hon. Members will not question, in which they recommend that the matter should be seriously considered. Is not that what the Home Office has done by appointing six persons to hear evidence and report on the evidence? What is recommended is that there shall be an experimental period, during which the Home Office shall watch developments carefully. I think we may say, from our experience of the way in which the factory inspectors do their work, that they protect the workers and look at questions from point of view of the workers. An hon. Member has suggested that those who are friends of the workers would vote one way in this matter, and that those who thought nothing of the workers or regarded them as machines, would vote in favour of the Clause. I respectfully repudiate that idea. I have not had the honour of my hon. Friend's long connection with many great and honourable works for the working classes, but I would say that many hon. Members view this question quite impartially, and that their first consideration will be the welfare of the workers. If this House comes to the conclusion that the proposals of the Clause are desirable and ought to be
made the subject of an experiment, they will decide that, not in the interests of the capitalist or manufacturer, but in the highest interests of the workers themselves. We carefully considered the question of employment and the effect upon employment of the adoption of this system, and I do not think hon. Members opposite will gainsay what I say when I state that if the two-shift system were made illegal to-morrow, it would mean the immediate dismissal of a very large number of the 15,000 women at present employed, and the dismissal in a very short time of a very much larger number of men who depend for their employment upon the work of these women.
The suggestion has been made that employers should carry on in the same way as they did before the War. We were told by different employers that as trade has developed new processes have been introduced in which women's work is essential. In many cases the demand for an article has so enormously increased that production must be developed in the public interest, and only women can do certain work. Take, for instance, the cotton-covered wire industry, which is a basis of the electrical industry. Cotton-covered wire can be made only by women; no man is adroit enough for the work. The Post Office is making such heavy demands for the product that the industry is 18 months behind-hand. The women like the work, and they have no objection to beginning at six o'clock in the morning in one week and working till 10 o'clock in the evening in another week. Dismiss half the women and you will diminish the output. That will in turn involve the dismissal of a large number of men in the electrical industry, the total varying from 20,000 to 50,000. It was on those broad grounds we ventured to make our recommendations to the Home Secretary and to the House.

Mr. LAWSON: In the report of the evidence Mr. Stuart Russell, on behalf of the Federation of British Industries and the India Rubber Manufacturers' Association, said that they wanted longer hours by working the two-shift system. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that for some months it has been stated that the rubber manufacturers were going to reduce their output. How, under those circumstances, did the Committee attach value to a statement of the kind?

Mr. INSKIP: I am not the hon. Gentleman to whom to address that question which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is much more capable of answering. If output is to be reduced, and there are not sufficient orders, then a two-shift system would not be required.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I am sure the House will be very grateful to my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Inskip) for the speech which he has made as to the work of the Committee. May I remind the House how it was that the Committee came to be appointed. A Committee of great weight had strongly recommended that the two-shift system was one which ought to receive further consideration. It had upon it names which must carry great weight, not only with the general community, but in the labour world as well. More than that, Home Office inspectors quite voluntarily in their reports put it forward as their view that women employed on the two-shift system during the War were very anxious for that system to continue. Under these circumstances, the proposal was put into the original Bill. In Committee these statements were strongly contested. It was urged upon the Committee that it was quite a mistake to suppose that women wanted the two shifts continued, or that anyone employed under the system was contented with it. I felt, rightly or wrongly, that that argument weighed more with the Committee than any other, and for that reason I thought it right that the whole question should be sifted, examined, and tested by evidence. That has been done. A Committee, well qualified to take evidence, has reported strongly in favour of recommending to the House the acceptance of this Clause, and in these circumstances I feel, speaking on behalf of the Government, that I must ask the House to accept this Clause. We give it all the support we can.
A great deal of the Debate this afternoon, interesting as it has been, has been very wide of the mark, and indeed almost irrelevant to the Bill. What is our proposal? There is no proposal for new or permanent legislation, but there is a proposal that certain provisions that were adopted during the War, of which we have had some years' experience, should be further continued for a limited period
of time, in order that they may be thoroughly investigated, and that the permanent provision eventually decided upon should be based on the best and widest experience. Our factory system is to be overhauled, with a view to further amendments of the law. We are, however, now in the experimental stage with regard to factory legislation. It has been argued as if this Bill were passed it would rest with the Department to force any industry to adopt this system. Nothing could be further from the facts. This does not impose anything on anybody. The simple proposal is that the Home Secretary, if people come to him, and say they want the system continued, shall look into the question, and if he consider proper, give permission subject to such conditions as are necessary for safeguarding the welfare and interests of the persons employed. All the Home Secretary can do is, if he think proper, to make Orders authorising the employment of women and young persons on two day shifts. Nothing is being imposed on anybody. The Committee ignored the question of the cotton industry in Lancashire, because they were distinctly told that the cotton industry did not want this system.

Mr. BELL: Who said so?

Mr. SHORTT: Does the hon. Member suggest that the cotton industry does want it?

Mr. BELL: They do not want the two-shift system, but why were they not invited to give evidence?

Mr. SHORTT: What was the good of asking you to give evidence? You did not want to have anything to do with it? The misconception under which my hon. Friend is labouring is that, because people in the glass industry, or biscuit or margarine industries are allowed to have this, therefore the other industries must have it. The cotton industry is not in the faintest danger from these proposals, unless it changes its mind, and asks to have the proposals extended to it.

Mr. LAWSON: You propose to allow those industries which had not used the system before the War to use it now.

SHORTT: If they want to do so, they will come and ask for it, and if it be proper an Order will be made. There are in existence already 191 Orders.
There are five Orders in the cotton trade, which have been in existence for some time. In the case of the glass industry, I think it is admitted by Labour Members that an exception might be made. Food is of the greatest importance—margarine and biscuits—the very things in which the cost of production must be reduced if you are going to lower the cost to the people in the country. One of the trades in which Orders have been most extensive is the food trade. The question of unemployment is one of the most urgent matters at this moment, and if we are not allowed to continue these Orders, if the power to make these Orders is to cease, then the amount of unemployment will be very, very serious. My hon. and learned Friend has quoted the case of the cotton-covered wire industry. In that particular trade nearly 1,100 women are employed, and about the same number of young persons. They will all be thrown out of work, and when one lot of people are thrown out of work and cease to produce, others are thrown out in consequence. It is a matter of the most vital importance, at a time when unemployment is going to be so rife, as I believe it will be this winter. I put that before the House for really serious consideration.
I have not gone into the question from the point of view of permanent legislation. This is temporary legislation. There is established a very good case for some further enquiry into this two-shift system with regard to certain industries. When you know that, in addition to it being a temporary continuance for another few years of a system, which has been tried for four or five years, and you see the result of it will be, at any rate, to obviate some of the unemployment, then it is a perfectly fair thing to ask the House to take that into consideration, and to give it weight when it comes to a decision. Here we have a system which was brought into existence during the War, and which has been found to work to the satisfaction of those engaged in it. The evidence as to that is overwhelming. It has not been found that it has had evil effects either upon the health or the moral welfare of those concerned. It has been very strongly opposed by certain industries, but there is nothing here that will affect them in the slightest. Why should people be denied the right to give this a trial, to go on with the further experiment, merely because some other people
object to it? I, therefore, ask the House to give us the Second Reading. There may be subsequently certain points that will arise. On these the Government will not take the same strong stand that they take on this Clause; but we do take a strong stand here. I ask for the Second Reading, because it is of great importance, if we desire to uphold our position as leaders of the world commercially and industrially, that we should get the Bill as a whole and ratify these conventions, and get them through as quickly as possible.

Viscountess ASTOR: I have listened to the Debate, and it is really most difficult for me to make up my mind on this Clause. It would be, I feel, unfair to women if by voting against this you keep some of them out of employment. Yet if it really means that this is going to open the way to using women as cheap labour, it would be wrong for me to vote for it. But it seems to me that it has been made quite evident that it will not interfere with education; also that it is only experimental. I am against the two-shift system for both men and women from the point of view of the home life. If those hon. Members who talk of home life would close the public-houses at 10 o'clock, those concerned would get more home life! The Government, I think, have a good case. It is experimental, and only for five years. By that time, I hope, the young women will be 21, and have the vote. I know the difficulty of getting them into the trade unions. However, by that time they will have, I trust, got the vote, and hon. Members will have to listen to them more attentively than now. Some hon. Members seem to fear the employer, and they have a perfect right to do so where women are concerned. Women have a perfect right to fear trade unions. The Labour party appeal for the women's vote, and yet the trade unions are not fair to the women in many ways. There is one question I would like to ask the Home Secretary. Supposing we decide to erect a textile factory in Essex, and ask for the two-shift system, would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to grant it? That is important because it makes it a little difficult in the case of the textile workers in the North who fought so hard for the hours they have now.

Mr. SHORTT: I am afraid it is impossible to answer in regard to some mill about which I have no absolute knowledge.

Viscountess ASTOR: I hope we have from 7 to 9. Although we want absolutely the same advantages for women as the men have, we nevertheless realise that the women have the housework to do when they get home. If I thought this proposal was going to be permanent, I should vote against it. We must listen to the opinion of this subject of women like Miss Constance Smith and others, who are just as interested in the life of the workers as any of those who represent trade unions. I hope hon. Members will not think that we who support this Clause are trying to let in the thin end of the wedge for cheap labour. While we are willing to support this Clause, we are not willing to have it used for that purpose.

Mr. ROBERTSON: I understand that the Home Secretary is asking the House to pass this Clause, in order to keep faith with the Washington Convention.

Mr. SHORTT: I never said anything of the kind.

Mr. ROBERTSON: Is it not a fact that this Clause proposes something entirely outside the Washington Convention with which we are asked to keep faith?

Mr. SHORTT: I never said anything of the sort.

Mr. GREENWOOD: It is not often that I intervene in Debate, and I only do so on this occasion because I feel a very real interest in this subject. After the almost unanimous condemnation of this Clause which the Government met with on a previous occasion, I am very sorry that it has been introduced again. It has been said by several speakers that if it could be shown that anything in the Clause would be prejudicial to the health and general well-being of the community, they would not support it. I hope that after the arguments which have been put forward against this Clause so sincerely and forcibly, the right hon. Gentleman will either withdraw the Clause or take off the Government Whips, so as to give the
House a free vote on this subject. Remarks have been made about the composition of the Committee. I certainly have nothing detrimental to say about the composition of the Committee. One hon. Member has asked, and I also would like to ask, whether there are any on the Committee who have had any experience of the early-morning start in industry. It has been asked whether any hon. Members have been awakened in their beds by the noise of the clogs in the early morning. I would like to ask hon. Members and the right hon. Gentleman not whether they have been awakened by the noise of the clogs, but have made a noise with the clogs in the early morning themselves, because, if they had, they would have different views. It has been said that there is no need for any opposition from the cotton trade. A very good argument with regard to that has been used by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Bell). It is a remarkable thing that, although this Committee say that there was no need to consider the wish of the textile trade, for the simple reason that they knew it, they make a considerable point of the fact that they had a deputation from one firm, engaged extensively in the textile trade, who were not only in favour of this system, but who had adopted and had had to give it up. This Committee and those who favour the re-introduction of this system ought at any rate to try and be consistent.
I have no mandate either for the trade unionists or for any association of employers with regard to this question, and, if I had, I should take no notice of it; but during a great part of 35 years I wore the clogs which made the noise that awoke the hon. Member, and I claim that an ounce of experience is worth a pound of theory. Although this Committee may have judged only on the evidence, and may not have been actuated by sentiment, I respectfully say that in a case of this sort I make no apology for letting sentiment guide me. I have a mandate from the people of Stockport, to whom I told my views on this question before they elected me. It is not a question of the Government meeting the wishes of a Committee which they have appointed, but rather whether they are meeting the views of the Members of this House and of the people of the country. I do not think anyone who has had the experience that I have had of the early
morning start would ever wish to see us go back again to that, and I agree with the hon. Members who have spoken that any return to legislation which would allow a retrograde movement of that sort would be entirely wrong. We have been told that gentlemen like Mr. John Bright opposed legislation to curtail the hours. of labour in factories. Does any hon. Member think that either Mr. John Bright or Lord Shaftesbury, if they were here to-day, would support this Clause? If I had the eloquence of Mr. John Bright or of Lord Shaftesbury, or the two combined, I should use it entirely to try and defeat the re-introduction of such a Clause as this. We are told that we must look at it from all points of view, and that it is more important to consider the health of the workpeople than anything else. We have been told by the supporters of the Clause that they believe it is not so much a question as to the number of hours that the workpeople work in the mill, but rather that the important question is the number of hours that the machinery is put to work in the factory. I would respectfully tell those who have no experience of this that the question of the running of the machinery and the length of time that the machinery runs has a very great bearing indeed on the health of the workers in the mill. If you run the machinery for an 8-hour stretch, and immediately go on to run another 8-hour stretch, I will give an illustration from my experience of what will happen.
It has been stated by the hon. Member for the Ormskirk Division that in the summer time the atmosphere in the mill, even after the ordinary hours of labour, becomes so vitiated that it is almost impossible for anyone to work there any further with any degree of comfort. And let anyone imagine what would be the atmospheric condition of those rooms—I am speaking now particularly with regard to the spinning rooms—after a period of 16 or 17 hours' working! It would probably be a continuous run of 16 hours, because I see the hon. Members who were on this Committee seem to pay very little regard in their Report to the-question of any provision of proper meal hours. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"] I can assure the hon. Members who are so anxious to rise at five that they would not have anything like the same anxiety if they had practised it for about twenty or thirty years.
My practice, at any rate, in rising at five o'clock has not been in the evening, bat in the early morning. This morning I watched a procession that showed sincere sympathy with the cause of humanity, and sincere reverence for those who have been fighting in that cause. Right opposite, the office of the right hon. Gentleman there is a monument erected to the memory of those who fought and died in the interests of humanity, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to be a party in any sense to the re-introduction of a Clause such as this, which, in my opinion, would not be a monument to—

It being Five of the Clock, the Debate stood Adjourned.

Debate to he resumed upon Monday next (29th November).

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — IRELAND.

MR. ARTHUR GRIFFITH (ARREST).

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
I have been asked by my right hon. Friend, the Member for Widnes (Mr. A. Henderson), to give him what information I have in reference to the arrest of Mr. Arthur Griffith, who is described as the Vice-President of an alleged Irish Republic. I have the following telegram:
In the course of systematic raids which are being made throughout Dublin following the murders of last Sunday, the house of Mr. Arthur Griffith was raided at 3 a.m. this morning and a quantity of documents were found. These necessitate further investigation, and Mr. Griffith has been detained pending results.

Adjourned accordingly, at Two minutes after Five o'clock, till Monday next (29th November).